LIBRARY 

OF  THE 

University  of  California. 

GIFT  OF 

Mrs.  SARAH  P.  WALSWORTH. 

Received  October,  1894. 
^Accessions  No. S^fi (pq.      Class  No. 


/-';-    f 


PRELACY  AND  PARITY. 


DISCUSSED 


IN  SEVERAL  LECTURES ; 


COMPRISING 


A  REVIEW  OF  REV.  LLOYD  WINDSOR'S  ARGUMENT  ON  THE 
MINISTERIAL  COMMISSION. 


REV.  WILLIAM  C.  WISNER, 
II 

BI3HO?    OF    THE    FIRST?    PRESBYTERIAN    UHaRCH,    LOCETORT,    £T.    T. 


^crfwl 


NEW-YORK : 
LEAVITT,  TROW,  &  CO.,  194  BROADWAY. 

MDCCCXLIV. 


rj*u 


Entered  according  to  Act  of  Congress,  in  the  year  1344, 

By  LEAVITT,  TROW,  &  CO., 

in  the  Clerk's  Office  of  the  District  Court  of  the  Southern  District  of 

New- York. 


in  F.  Trow  &  Co.,   Printers 
S3  Ann-street. 


CONTENTS. 


Lecture 

I. 

Lecture 

II. 

Lecture 

III. 

Lecture 

IV. 

Lecture 

V. 

Lecture 

VI. 

Lecture 

VII. 

Lecture 

VIII 

'   (TURE 

IX. 

.APPENDIX.   N( 

Page 

Introduction       .  7 

Apostleship       .......  19 

Apostleship — Continued    .         .         ...  39 

The  Ministerial  Commission     ....  -63 

Testimony  of  the  Fathers          ....  88 

Testimony  of  the  Fathers — continued      .         .  105 

Corroborative  Testimony  of  Episcopalians       .  116 

The  Rise  of  Prelacy 128 

The  Claims  to  Apostolical  Succession   exam- 
ined       139 

Notes  on  certain  tracts  issued  pending  the  discus- 
sion               .         .  156 


ERRATA. 

On  pnge  10,  fifth  line  from  bottom,  for  Markrun  read  Markum. 

Page  '4:9,  twelfth  line  from  top,  for  professed  read  possessed. 

Page  40,  last,  line,  for  they  read  this. 

Pa^e  43,  eighth  line  from  top,  between  word  and  seems,  insert  "thcni." 

Page  58,  fifteenth  line  from  rop,  for  divine  read  diverse. 

Pasre  74,  sixth  line  from  bottom,  insert  between  any  and  His, — That  they  ruled  is 
admitted  by  our  author.  < 

Page  80,  fifth  line  from  top.  for  imperial  read  inspired. 

Besides  these,  there  are  a  few  minor  mistakes,  two  or  three  of  which  extend  to 
single  letters  in  Greek  words,  but  they  are  so  obvious  that  the  reader  will  at  once 
perceive  and  correct  them  for  himself. 


TO  THE  READER. 


In  giving  to  the  public  the  following  Lectures,  the 
Author  has  yielded  to  the  earnest  solicitation  of  his  people, 
for  whose  special  benefit  they  were  prepared  and  delivered. 
The  circumstances  which  made  it  necessary  for  him  to  enter 
upon  the  discussion  are  sufficiently  explained  in  the  intro- 
ductory discourse.  In  the  course  of  his  argument  he  has 
not  scrupled  to  avail  himself  of  all  the  aid  he  could  gather 
from  the  most  prominent  authors  upon  the  same  subject; 
such  as  Miller,  Barnes,  Smyth,  Powell,  Duffield,  &c.  He 
flatters  himself  that  the  argument  is  compressed  into  a  much 
smaller  compass  in  the  present  volume,  than  it  can  elsewhere 
be  found  ;  while  yet  nothing  material  to  a  correct  under- 
standing of  the  whole  subject  is  omitted. 

There  is  one  point  to  which  he  would  call  the  special 
attention  of  the  reader.  Writers  upon  the  same  side  of 
this  subject  with  himself,  have  divided  the  Apostolic  office 
into  two  parts,  viz.,  that  which  was  extraordinary  and  tempo- 
rary, and  that  which  was  ordinary  and  perpetual.  The 
former  part  of  this  office,  they  tell  us,  has  long  since  passed 
away ;  while  the  latter  continues  in  the  person  of  every 
gospel  minister.  By  thus  dividing  the  same  office  into  parts 
so  entirely  distinct  and  distinguished  from  each  other,  they 
have,  to  many  minds,  darkened  the  whole  subject,  and  given 
our  opponents  a  decided  advantage.  The  author  of  the 
subsequent  Lectures  has  endeavored  to  prove  that  the 
Apostleship   is    an   office  entirely  distinct    from  the   pres- 

1 


6 


TO    THE    READER. 


byterate ;  and  that  the  two  have  no  necessary  connection 
with  each  other  :  that  the  Apostles  were  made  Presbyters 
some  time  after  they  received  the  Apostleship  ;  and  that  the 
ministerial  commission  had  nothing  to  do  with  appointment 
to  Apostleship — but  that  Christ  gave  it  to  his  disciples 
simply  as  Presbyters.  If  these  positions  can  be  maintained, 
they  render  the  whole  argument  very  plain  and  simple,  and 
bring  it  within  the  comprehension  of  every  reflecting 
mind.  How  far  the  author  has  succeeded  in  his  argument 
is  left  to  the  judgment  of  an  impartial  public. 

Lockport,  Nov.  1,  1843. 


LECTURE    I. 


INTRODUCTION. 
Job  xxxii.  10. — "  I  also  will  show  mine  opinion." 

Controversy,  in  itself  considered,  and  especially  about 
mere  externals,  is  a  thing  to  be  lamented  in  the  church  of 
God.  But  there  are  times  when  men  are  unavoidably  placed 
upon  the  defensive  ;  when,  to  keep  silence  would  be  weak 
not  only,  but  culpable  in  the  extreme.  We,  my  brethren, 
have  arrived  at  such  a  crisis  in  our  history  ;  and  I  am 
reluctantly  compelled-  by  the  force  of  circumstances,  to 
enter  upon  a  series  of  Lectures  in  defence  of  the  ministry, 
the  ordinances,  and  the  government  of  our  church,  in 
opposition  to  the  exclusive  claims  set  up  by  a  portion  of  the 
Episcopal  communion.  I  said  "  reluctantly  compelled  " — not 
because  I  have  any  fears  as  to  the  result  of  such  a  contro- 
versy,— but  because  it  would  be  much  more  consonant  with 
my  feelings  to  preach  repentance  towards  God  and  faith  in 
the  Lord  Jesus  Christ ;  thus  endeavouring  to  benefit  the 
heart,  and  cultivate  the  Christian  graces,  than  to  be  contend- 
ing about  the  beauty  and  order  of  that  external  drapery 
which  Christ  has  thrown  over  his  church.  I  said  "  by  a 
portion  of  the  Episcopal  communion  " — because  the  Episco- 
pal church  in  England,  and,  to  a  greater  or  less  extent,  in 
this  country,  has  ever  been  divided  into  three  distinct  classes 
upon  this  subject;  of  which  the  "  exclusive  right"  class 
are  (or,  if  they  are  not  now,  have  been  until  very  lately) 
by  far  the  smallest.  The  first  class  are  those  who  believe 
that  the  New  Testament  does  not  prescribe  any  particular 
form  of  government  as  binding  upon  the  church ;  but  that  it 


8  INTRODUCTION. 

was  left  with  her  members  to  adopt  such  a  form  as  they, 
under  all  the  circumstances  of  the  case,  should  deem  most 
expedient.  They  prefer  Episcopacy  because  they  believe  it 
to  be  the  most  perfect  form  of  government ;  but  they  deny 
that  it  has  been  established  jure  divino.  Among  this  class 
we  find  the  names  of  Archbishops  Cranmer,  Grindal, 
Whitgift,  and  Tillctson  ;  Bishops  Leighton,  Jewel,  Reynolds, 
Burnet,  and  Croft  ;  Doctors  Whittaker  and  Stillingfleet, 
and  a  multitude  of  others  too  numerous  to  mention.  The 
second  class  are  those  who  believe  that  Episcopacy  was 
sanctioned  by  the  Apostles,  and  that  it  is  necessary  to  the 
perfection  of  the  church,  but  deny  that  it  is  necessary  to  her 
existence:  and  they  acknowledge  other  evangelical  denomi- 
nations to  be  true  churches,  although  deprived  of  the  perfect 
polity  preferred  and  adopted  by  the  apostles.  We  find 
numbered  with  this  class,  among  many  other  distinguished 
names,  Archbishops  Usher  and  Wake :  Bishops  Hall, 
Dounham,  Bancroft,  Andrews,  Forbes,  Chillingworth, 
Hoadly,  &,c.  The  third  class  comprises  those  who,  follow- 
ing the  illustrious  example  of  the  papal  hierarchy,  unchurch 
everybody  but  themselves,  and  thunder  out  their  bull  of 
excommunication  against  the  ministry  and  ordinances  of 
every  other  denomination,  declaring  them  invalid  and  of  no 
effect.  We  are  gratified  to  be  able  to  state,  for  the  honor 
of  the  Episcopal  church,  that  this  third  class  has,  from  the 
Reformation  until  very  lately,  been  comparatively  small. 
How  the  matter  stands  at  present,  we  are  unable  definitely 
to  say;  we  trust  they  are  still  in  the  minority,  although 
we  have  reason  to  fear  that  they  are  on  the  increase. 

To  show  that  this  is  not  a  mistaken  statement,  let  a  few 
quotations  from  Episcopal  writers  suffice.  The  unhappy 
Charles  I.,  when  urged  to  consent  to  a  proposed  act  of 
Parliament  for  abolishing  Episcopacy,  wrote  upon  the 
subject  to  his  tried  Episcopal  friends  and  counsellors — Lord 
Jermyn,  Lord  Culpepper,  and  Mr.  Ashburnham — as  follows  : 


INTRODUCTION. 


9 


"  Show  me  any  precedent  wherever  Presbyterial  government 
and  regal  was  together  without  perpetual  rebellions  ;  which 
was  the  cause  that  necessitated  the  king  my  father  to  change 
that  government  in  Scotland.     And  even  in  France,  where 
they  are  upon  tolerance,  (which  in  likelihood  should  cause 
moderation,)  did  they  ever  sit  still  so  long  as  they  had  power 
to  rebel  1     And  it  cannot  be  otherwise  ;  for  the  ground  of 
their   doctrine   is    anti-monarchical.      I    will    say,    without 
hyperbole,  that  there  was  not  a  wiser  man  since  Solomon 
than  he  who  said,  '  no  Bishop,  no  King.1  "     His  majesty 
likewise  stated  that  to  consent  to  the  proposed  abolition  was 
against  his  "  conscience."     To  all  of  which  they  reply — "  If, 
by  conscience,  your  meaning  is,  that  you  are  obliged  to  do 
all  in  your  power  to  support  and  maintain  the  functions  of 
Bishops,  as  that  which  is  the  most  ancient,  reverend,  and 
pious   government   of  the    church,   we    fully  and   heartily 
concur  with  you  therein.      But  if,  by  conscience  is  intended 
to  assert  that  Episcopacy  is  jure  divino  exclusive,  whereby 
no  Protestant  (or  rather  Christian)  church  can  be  acknow- 
ledged for  such  without  a  bishop,  we  must,  therein,  crave 
leave  wholly  to  differ.     And  if  we  be  not  in  error,  we  are  in 
good    company ;    there  not   being  (as  we  have    cause    to 
believe)  six  persons  of  the  Protestant  religion  of  the  other 
opinion.     Thus  much  we  can   add,  that,   at  the   treaty  of 
Uxbridge,  none  of  your  divines  then  present  (though  much 
provoked  thereunto)   would   maintain  that  (we  might  say 
uncharitable)  opinion  ;  no,  not  privately  among  your  com- 
missioners."    It  is  worthy  of  remark,  that  these  counsellors 
of  King  Charles  were  entirely  opposed  to  the  abolition  of 
Episcopacy,  and  in   favor  of  maintaining  the   functions  of 
the    bishops,   as    "the  most   ancient,  reverend,   and  pious 
government  of  the  church  f  still,  they  did  not  hold,  and 
they  had  reason  to  believe  that  there  were  "  not  six  persons 
of~the  Protestant  religion,"   who  held  that  Episcopacy  was 
"jure  divino  exclusive,"  in  such  a  sense  that  no  Protestant 


10 


INTRODUCTION. 


denomination  without  bishops  could  be  called  a  church. 
This  uncharitable  sentiment,  for  themselves  and  the  whole 
English  church,  they  entirely  repudiate.  Bishop  Hall,  an 
eminent  English  prelate  who  flourished  about  the  middle  of 
the  seventeenth  century,  and  who  did  as  much  as  any  other 
man  of  that  age  to  advance  the  cause  of  Episcopacy,  pub- 
lished a  work  which  he  called  Irenicum,  (or  Peacemaker,) 
from  which  we  extract  the  following  passage  :  "  Blessed  be 
God,  there  is  no  difference,  in  any  essential  point,  between 
the  church  of  England,  and  her  sister-reformed  churches. 
We  unite  in  every  article  of  Christian  doctrine,  without  the 
least  variation,  as  full  and  absolute  agreement  between  their 
public  confessions  and  ours  testifies.  The  only  difference 
between  us  consists  in  our  mode  of  constituting  the  external 
ministry ;  and  even  with  respect  to  this,  we  are  of  one  mind, 
because  we  all  prof  ess  to  believe  that  it  is  not  an  essential  of 
the  church,  (though,  in  the  opinion  of  many,  it  is  a  matter  of 
importance  to  her  well-being ;)  and  we  all  retain  a  respectful 
and  friendly  opinion  of  each  other,  not  seeing  any  reason 
why  so  small  a  disagreement  should  produce  any  alienation 
of  affection  among  us." 

In  a  pamphlet  recently  published  in  this  village,  entitled 
"  An  inquiry  into  the  ministerial  commission,  by  Rev.  Lloyd 
Windsor,  M.  A.,"  (to  which  pamphlet,  as  we  proceed,  we 
shall  now  and  then  pay  our  respects,)  we  find  a  long  cata- 
logue of  Popes  and  Bishops,  through  which  the  author  pre- 
tends to  trace  a  regular  succession  of  Apostles,  from  the 
Apostles  Peter  and  Paul  to  Apostle  White  of  Pennsylvania ; 
who,  it  would  seem  from  the  author's  showing,  was  the  first 
Apostle  to  the  Gentiles  beyond  the  Great  Waters :  for  in 
1787,  William  Markrun,  the  arch-Apostle  of  York,  in  con- 
nection with  other  Apostles  of  the  Episcopal  church,  con- 
stituted this  William  White  apostle  of  Pennsylvania.  Now, 
as  he  was  the  father  of  the  Episcopal  church  in  the  United 
States,  and  the   medium    through  which  they  trace  their 


I 


INTRODUCTION.  11 

Apostolic  succession  up  to  the  churches  of  the  seven-hilled 
city,  his  opinions  should  have  great  weight  with  the  sons  of 
the  prelacy.  This  same  Bishop  White  published  a  pam- 
phlet, entitled  "  The  Case  of  the  Episcopal  Church  in  the 
United  States  considered,"  from  which  we  extract  the  follow- 
ing :  "  Now  if  even  those  who  hold  Episcopacy  to  be  of 
divine  right  conceive  the  obligation  to  it  not  to  be  binding, 
when  that  idea  would  be  destructive  of  public  worship ; 
much  more  must  they  think  so,  who  indeed  venerate  and 
prefer  that  form  as  the  most  ancient  and  eligible,  but 
without  any  idea  of  divine  right  in  the  case.  This  the 
author  believes  to  be  the  sentiment  of  the  great  body  of 
Episcopalians  in  America;  in  which  respect,  they  have  in 
their  favor  unquestionably  the  sense  of  the  church  of 
England ;  and,  as  he  believes,  the  opinions  of  her  most 
distinguished  prelates  fox  piety,  virtue,  and  abilities."  We 
see  from  this  extract, 

1.  That  in  the  days  of  Bishop  White,  those  who  believed 
in  the  divine  right  of  Episcopacy  did  not  consider  it  abso- 
lutely  necessary   to     the    existence   of    a    church ;     they 

CONCEIVED  THE  OBLIGATION  OF  IT  NOT  TO  BE  BINDING 
WHEN  THAT  IDEA  WOULD  BE  DESTRUCTIVE  OF  PUBLIC  WOR- 
SHIP. " 

2.  That,  much  as  Bishop  White  venerated  Episcopacy, 
he  did  not  believe  in  its  divine  right. 

3.  That  the  great  body  of  Episcopalians  in  America 
were  of  the  same  opinion ;   and, 

4.  That  this  was  the  sense  of  the  English  church,  sus- 
tained by  her  most  distinguished  prelates. 

With  Episcopalians  of  this  stamp  we  have  no  controver- 
sy. We  love  them  as  brethren,  and  are  more  than  willing 
that  they  should  enjoy  the  form  of  government  which  they 
so  much  venerate.  It  is  not  the  Episcopal  church  against 
which  we  contend  :  it  is  not  their  form  of  government,  their 
liturgy,  their  creed.     To  be  sure  we  think  them  all,  in  many 


12  INTRODUCTION. 

respects,  defective  ;  but  if  others  prefer  them,  we  are  entire- 
ly willing  they  should  adopt  them ;  and  we  hail  them  as 
members  of  the  same  spiritual  family  with  us,  belonging  to 
the  same  body  of  Christ,  which  is  the  church.  But  when 
the  sons  of  the  Hierarchy  come  out  with  their  exclusive 
claims — their  jure  divino  exclusive  opinions — when  they 
profess  to  be  the  only  true  church,  and  to  possess  the  only 
valid  ministry  and  ordinances — when  they  unchurch  every 
Protestant  denomination  but  their  own,  calling  their  pastors 
unordained,  and  their  sacraments  unauthorized — when  they 
arrogate  to  themselves  all  correct  understanding  of  this  sub- 
ject— when  they  attribute  the  opinions  of  their  brethren 
who  differ  from  them  to  prejudice  and  ignorance,  and,  in 
effect,  say  to  the  world,  "  we  are  the  people,  and  wis- 
dom will  die  with  us  " — when,  not  satisfied  with  preach- 
ing these  doctrines  week  after  week  and  month  after  month, 
they  give  them  to  the  community  in  pamphlets — and  when, 
illy  at  ease  to  have  these  pamphlets  find  their  way  into  the 
bosom  of  families  from  respectable  bookstores,  they  cause 
them  to  be  hawked  from  door  to  door  in  baskets — 
then,  we  think  that  for  us  to  keep  silence  on  the  subject 
would  be  an  unpardonable  omission  of  duty.  Certainly  our 
brethren  of  the  Episcopal  church  cannot  blame  us,  if,  under 
such  circumstances,  we  should  review  their  exclusive  claims 
with  some  degree  of  severity — if  we  should  defend,  with 
somewhat  of  a  heavy  hand,  our  own  ecclesiastical  exist- 
ence. 

We  have  just  received,  through  the  columns  of  the  Epis- 
copal Recorder,  some  remarks  of  the  venerable  Dr.  Milnor, 
Rector  of  St.  George's  Church,  New-York  city,  against  the 
influence  of  the  Oxford  Tracts  and  other  publications  of  the 
same  school,  which  go  to  show  that,  in  his  opinion,  the 
increase  of  the  exclusive  doctrines  of  high  church  Episco- 
palians is  to  be  attributed,  in  a  great  measure,  to  those  pub- 
lications.    "  That  those  tracts,"  says  he,  "  have  been  the 


INTRODUCTION.  13 

means  of  corrupting  the  faith  of  many,  and  of  leading  some, 
for  the  sake  of  consistency,  to  abjure  the  reformed  faith  and 
to  unite  themselves  with  the  church  of  Rome,  is  an  unques- 
tioned fact ;  and  that  they  have  led  members  still  in  com- 
munion to  promulgate  opinions  which,  a  few  years  ago, 
would  have  identified  them  with  the  adherents  of  that  cor- 
rupt church,  is  equally  true."  What  those  opinions  are 
which  are  taught  at  Oxford  and  imbibed  by  a  portion  of  the 
Episcopal  church,  and  which,  in  the  view  of  Dr.  Milnor  at 
least,  would  have  identified  their  adherents  with  the  Papal 
church,  had  they  been  promulgated  a  few  years  ago,  we 
learn  from  the  following  extract.  "  When  I  can  bring  my 
mind  to  believe  that,  instead  of  taking  my  Bible  as  the  guide 
of  my  path,  I  should  dishonor  the  best  of  Heaven's  gifts  by 
admitting  tradition  to  a  coequal  rank — when  I  can  be  per- 
suaded that  there  is  a  dread  obscurity  in  Scripture,  even  in 
the  fundamentals  of  Christian  faith,  that  renders  indispensa- 
ble the  aid  of  such  an  adjunct  in  the  discovery  of  truth — 
when  my  charity  so  fails  that  I  can  consign  my  fellow- 
Christians  of  other  names,  whatever  the  strength  of  their 
faith  in  Christ  and  the  holiness  of  their  lives,  to  the  uncovc- 
nanted  mercies  of  God,  because  of  their  not  belonging  to  a 
church  governed  by  bishops  consecrated  by  succession  from 
the  Apostles — when  I  dare  rssert  that  that  order  is  requisite 
not  only  to  the  perfection  and  completeness  of  a  Christian 
church,  but  also  to  its  very  existence — when  I  am  convinced 
that  I  must  ascribe  exclusively  to  the  apostolic  commission 
the  derivation  of  the  grace  of  the  Spirit  and  our  mystical 
communion  with  Christ,  to  believe,  in  truth,  that  the  sacra- 
ments of  the  church  are  the  only  channels  whereby  the  gifts 
of  the  Holy  Spirit  are  conveyed  to  man — when  I  can  se« 
that  there  is  an  actual  sacrament  in  the  Eucharist,  and  that 
the  Redeemer  is  really  and  essentially  present  in  his  natural 
body  and  blood,  in  that  sacrament,"  &/C.  *  *  #  *  * 
"  When  I  can  make  these  admissions  and  subscribe  to  these 


14  INTRODUCTION. 

sentiments,  I  may  join  the  ranks  of  the  men  of  Oxford."  In 
this  extract  the  following  things  are  noticeable : 

1.  It  contains  a  list  of  those  sentiments  which  have  been 
embraced  by  a  portion  of  the  Episcopal  church,  under  the 
influence  of  Oxford  publications. 

2.  Among  these  sentiments  we  find  that  against  which 
we  are  at  present  contending,  viz.,  that  which  consigns 
"fellow-Christians  of  other  names ,  whatever  the  strength  of 
their  faith  in  Christ  and  the  holiness  of  their  lives,  to  the 
uncovenanted  mercies  of  God,  because  of  their  not  belonging 
to  a  church  governed  by  bishops  consecrated  by  succession 
from  the  Apostles  " — which  "  dares  assert  that  that  order  is 

requisite  not  only  to  the  completeness  and  perfection  of  a 
Christian  church,  but  also  to  its  very  existence." 

3.  That  in  the  opinion  of  the  venerable  Doctor  Milnor, 
(and  we  suspect  of  many  other  Episcopal  doctors,)  this  is 
one  of  the  sentiments  which,  "  a.  few  years  ago,  would  have 
identified  its  adherents  with  the  corrupt  church  of  Rome" 

The  truth  is,  High  Church  Episcopacy  is  fast  verging 
towards  Oxford,  and  Oxford  is  more  than  half  way  on  her 
journey  to  the  Italian  capital.  When  we  read,  in  one  of 
the  principal  and  recent  publications  of  the  Oxford  school, 
such  sentences  as  these — "  We  cannot  stand  where  we  are  ; 
we  must  either  go  backwards  or  forwards,  and  it  will  surely 
be  the  latter  :" — "  It  is  absolutely  necessary  to  the  consist- 
ency of  the  system  which  we  are  laboring  to  restore,  that 
truths  should  be  clearly  stated  which  as  yet  have  been  but 
intimated,  and  others  developed  which  are  now  but  in  the 
germ  ;  and  as  we  go  on  we  must  recede  more  and  more 

FROM  THE    PRINCIPLES,  IF  ANY    THERE  BE,  OF  THE    ENGLISH 

Reformation" — I  say,  when  we  read  such  sentences  as 
these  in  their  leading  and  recent  tracts,  we  cannot  close  our 
eyes  to  the  fact  that  that  portion  of  the  Episcopal  church, 
with  the  feelings  of  a  homesick  daughter,  is  rushing  to  the 
embrace  of  her  Papal  mother. 


INTRODUCTION.  15 

In  controversy  it  is  necessary,  in  order  to  be  clearly 
understood,  that  we  define  with  precision  and  perspicuity 
the  things  about  which  we  contend,  and  the  principles 
which  we  shall  endeavor  to  establish.  In  order  to  this,  the 
first  inquiry  which  meets  the  mind  is — What  is  Episcopacy  ? 
This  term  is  derived  from  the  Greek  word  Emaxonog, 
which  signifies  an  overseer,  a  bishop.  It  has  come  to  desig- 
nate those  religious  denominations  which  are  governed  by 
diocesan  bishops.  These — omitting  to  notice  the  Greek 
church — may  be  divided  into  the  Episcopal  Papal,  and  Epis- 
copal Protestant.  The  Episcopal  Protestant  church  is  the 
established  church  of  Great  Britain.  The  King  or  Queen 
is  the  supreme  head  on  earth  of  the  English  church.  This 
no  pne  will  doubt  who  has  ever  read  the  history  of  the  Eng- 
lish reformation,  or  the  statutes  of  Parliament  upon  the  sub- 
ject, or  Sir  William  Blackstone's  inimitable  Commentary 
upon  English  law.  Queen  Victoria  is  at  present  the 
supreme  head  on  earth  of  the  English  church.  Next  to  this 
royal  lady  we  find  two  archbishops ;  next  to  them  comes  a 
line  of  bishops ;  next,  archdeacons  ;  then  presbyters  ;  and 
then  deacons.  So  that,  in  the  English  Episcopal  church, 
besides  her  supreme  earthly  head,  there  are  five  orders  or 
distinctions  of  clergy.  Episcopalians  in  this  country  have 
concluded  to  dispense  with  a  king  for  their  supreme  head — 
it  not  being  very  convenient  to  find  one.  They  have  like- 
wise taken  down  the  lofty  arches  in  their  magnificent  Epis- 
copal temple — such  as  archbishops  and  archdeacons,  and 
have  adopted  the  more  simple  form  of  the  threefold  ministry, 
as  it  is  sometimes  called.  By  the  canons  of  the  Episcopal 
church,  at  least  three  bishops  are  necessary  to  ordain  a 
bishop.  Presbyters  have  nothing  to  do  with  the  ordination 
of  bishops.  Presbyters  are  ordained  by  the  bishop  of  the 
diocese  to  which  they  belong ;  the  presbyters  who  are  pres- 
ent placing  their  hands  upon  the  candidate's  head  by  way  of 
consent.      Deacons    are   ordained    by    the    bishop    alone. 


16  INTRODUCTION. 

Bishops  may  preach,  baptize,  and  administer  the  sacra- 
ments. The  duties  peculiar  to  a  bishop  are  confirmation, 
ordination,  and  supreme  ecclesiastical  rule,  within  the 
bounds  of  his  own  diocese.  The  duties  of  a  priest,  or  pres- 
byter, are  to  preach,  baptize,  administer  the  holy  eucharist, 
and  superintend  the  affairs  of  his  own  particular  charge, 
subject  in  all  things  to  his  bishop.  The  duties  of  a  deacon 
are  to  preach,  and,  if  necessary,  to  baptize  ;  to  which  is 
nominally  added  a  sort  of  superintendence  of  the  charities 
for  the  poor.  I  am  thus  explicit  in  describing  these  several 
offices  and  their  respective  duties,  to  prevent  continual 
explanations  in  the  progress  of  this  discussion. 

Presbytery  is  a  term  derived  from  the  Greek  word  IIqeg- 
pvreoog,  which  signifies  an  old  man — an  elder.  Presbyter 
is  used  to  designate  a  minister,  or  pastor,  of  a  church — and 
Presbytery  is  the  name  applied  to  a  council  of  such  minis- 
ters met  as  equals  in  office  to  transact  business  for  the 
churches  over  which  they  preside.  Hence  this  term  is  used 
to  designate  all  those  denominations  of  Christians  who 
believe  in  the  parity,  or  official  equality  of  the  clergy.  The 
main  points  of  difference  between  presbytery  and  jure  divino 
Episcopacy,  are  the  following : 

1.  Episcopacy  holds  that  the  Apostolic  office  is  a  per- 
manent office  in  the  church,  and  that  diocesan  bishops  are 
nothing  less  than  apostles,  the  succession  of  the  college  of 
apostles  who  were  about  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ.  Presbytery 
holds  that  the  apostolic  office  was  limited  and  extraordinary  ; 
that  there  never  were  but  twelve  apostles  at  the  same  time ; 
that  they  never  had  successors ;  that  when  they  died  the 
office  of  apostle  ceased. 

2.  Episcopacy  holds  that  the  commission  given  by  Christ 
to  his  disciples,  just  before  he  ascended  to  heaven,  to  preach, 
baptize,  and  govern  the  church,  was  given  to  them  as  apos- 
tles, and  is  to  be  continued  in  the  line  of  apostles  to  the  end 
of  time  ;  and  that,  if  there  is  a  single  link  defective  or  want- 


INTRODUCTION.  17 

ing  in  the  chain  of  succession,  it  invalidates  the  commission 
and  nullifies  the  ordinances.  Presbytery  holds  that  this 
commission  was  given  to  the  disciples  as  presbyters,  and  not 
as  apostles,  and  that  it  is  handed  down  to  the  church  in  the 
line  of  presbyters,  or  simple  pastors,  and  not  in  that  of  apos- 
tles ;  it  likewise  holds  that  if,  by  any  means,  there  should  be 
a  flaw  in  the  succession,  it  would  not  invalidate  the  commis- 
sion ;  that  every  one  who  enters  the  ministry  should  be 
called  immediately  by  Christ,  through  the  Spirit,  which  call 
is  indicated  to  him  by  the  state  of  his  mind,  and  the  provi- 
dences of  God  concerning  him.  The  question  whether  he 
has  been  so  called  to  the  ministry  is  finally  to  be  decided 
by  the  church,  through  her  presbyters,  and  the  act  of  ordi- 
nation is  the  public  announcement  of  that  decision,  and  the 
consecration  of  the  candidate,  in  a  most  solemn  manner,  for 
the  work  to  which  he  has  been  called  by  his  Lord  and 
Master. 

3.  Episcopacy  holds  that  there  wrere  instituted  by  Christ 
and  his  apostles  three  orders  of  the  ministry,  viz.,  bishops, 
presbyters,  and  deacons.  Presbytery  holds  that  there  never 
was  but  one  order  of  permanent  ministers  instituted  by 
divine  authority  in  the  church  ;  that  that  order  is  presbyters, 
or,  as  they  are  frequently  called,  bishops.  In  the  opinion  of 
Presbytery,  there  are,  besides  preaching  presbyters,  a  bench 
of  ruling  presbyters  or  elders,  whose  sole  business  is  to 
attend  to  the  government  of  the  church.  Hence,  the  dis- 
tinction made  in  Scripture  between  the  elders  who  rule  well 
and  those  who  labor  in  word  and  doctrine.  It  is  not  the 
duty  of  deacons  to  preach  and  baptize  ;  they  were  appointed 
solely  to  serve  tables— to  superintend  the  temporalities  of 
the  church  and  attend  to  the  wants  of  the  poor.  To  give  a 
more  full  view  of  the  sentiments  of  Presbytery  on  the  subject 
of  church  officers,  we  would  refer  to  Ephesians  iv.  11,  "And 
he  gave  some  apostles,  and  some  prophets,  and  some  evan- 
gelists, and  some  pastors  and  teachers/'  in  connection  with 


18  INTRODUCTION. 

1  Cor.  xii.  28 — "  And  God  hath  set  some  in  the  church  ; 
first,  apostles ;  secondarily,  prophets ;  thirdly,  teachers ; 
after  that,  miracles ;  then,  gifts  of  healing  ;  -helps ;  govern- 
ments ;  diversities  of  tongues."  It  would  seem  from  these 
passages  that  the  officers  in  the  early  New  Testament 
church  were  apostles,  prophets,  evangelists,  pastors  and 
teachers,  governments,  helps.  Presbytery  supposes  the 
three,  viz.,  apostles,  prophets,  and  evangelists,  were  extraor- 
dinary officers,  who  have  long  since  ceased  to  exist.  Pas- 
tors and  teachers  are  nothing  more  than  preaching  pres- 
byters, or  elders  who  labor  in  word  and  doctrine ;  govern- 
ments are  ruling  elders,  or  those  whose  whole  duty  it  is  to 
attend  to  the  government  or  rule  of  the  church ;  helps  are 
deacons,  or  those  officers  who  are  to  attend  to  the  temporal- 
ities of  the  church.  Here,  then,  are  stated,  as  plainly  as  I 
am  able  to  state  them,  the  leading  matters  of  dispute 
between  Presbytery  and  Episcopacy.  Both  appeal  to  the 
Bible  and  to  the  testimony  of  the  early  fathers  in  support  of 
their  favorite  theories.  In  unfolding  this  whole  "subject,  I 
intend  to  be  as  brief  as  is  consistent.  The  Lord  grant  that 
the  undertaking  may  result  in  good  to  the  churches,  for  his 
name's  sake. 


LECTURE   II, 


APOSTLESHIP. 

Luke  vi.  13-16. — "  And  when  it  was  day,  he  called  unto  him  his 
disciples ;  and  of  them  he  chose  twelve,  whom  also  he  named  apos- 
tles ;  Simon,  (whom  he  also  named  Peter,)  and  Andrew  his  brother, 
James  and  John,  Philip  and  Bartholomew,  Matthew  and  Thomas, 
James  the  son  of  Alpheus,  and  Simon  called  Zelotes,  and  Judas  the 
brother  of  James,  and  Judas  Iscariot  which  also  was  the  traitor." 

Mark  iii.  13-15. — "  And  he  goeth  up  into  a  mountain,  and  call- 
eth  unto  him  whom  he  would;  and  they  came  unto  him.  And  he 
ordained  twelve,  that  they  should  be  with  him,  and  that  he  might 
send  them  forth  to  preach,  and  to  have  power  to  heal  sicknesses,  and 
to  cast  out  devils." 

Our  subject  for  this  evening  is  the  Apostleship.  The 
difference  between  Episcopacy  and  Presbytery  upon  this  sub- 
ject was  stated  in  a  previous  lecture  as  follows  : — Episcopacy 
holds  that  the  Apostolic  office  is  a  permanent  office  in  the 
church ;  and  that  diocesan  bishops  are  nothing  less  than 
Apostles — the  successors  of  the  college  of  Apostles  who 
were  about  the  person  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ.  Presby- 
tery holds  that  the  Apostolic  office  was  limited  and  extraor- 
dinary ;  that  there  never  were  but  twelve  Apostles  at  the 
same  time ;  that  these  twelve  never  had  successors,  but  that, 
when  they  died,  the  office  of  Apostle  ceased. 

In  unfolding  the  argument  upon  this  subject,  it  is  neces- 
sary, at  the  outset,  that  we  understand  the  true  meaning  of 
the  term  Apostle.  It  comes  from  the  Greek  Anovfolog, 
which  signifies  one  sent  with  a  message — a  messenger ;  and 
when  the  message  is  of  a  spiritual  nature,  it  has  very  much 
the  same  import  with  our  word  missionary.     In  this  general 


20  APOSTLESHIP. 

sense  it  is  frequently  used  in  the  New  Testament,  of  which 
we  have  a  most  striking  example  in  John  xiii.  16  :  "  Verily 
I  say  unto  you,  the  servant  is  not  greater  than  his  Lord,  nei- 
ther is  he  that  is  sent  (cmoGtoXog)  greater  than  he  that  sent 
him."  Wherever  this  term,  in  its  general  signification,  is 
applied  to  individuals,  it  always  has  reference  to  some  par- 
ticular mission  upon  which  they  are  about  to  enter,  or  which 
they  have  already  undertaken,  or  which  has  been  accom- 
plished by  them.  Thus,  in  this  general  sense,  Paul  and 
Barnabas,  in  Acts  xiv.  14,  are  called  Apostles  or  missiona- 
ries, with  reference  to  the  special  mission  they  were  then 
performing — "  Which  when  the  Apostles  Barnabas  and  Paul 
heard  of,  they  rent  their  clothes,  and  ran  in  among  the  peo- 
ple, crying  out,"  &,c.  Any  impartial  reader  will  at  once 
perceive  that  the  term  citzogzoIoi  is  here  used  in  its  general 
signification,  with  reference  to  the  special  mission  which 
they  were  then  performing  at  the  command  of  the  Holy 
Ghost,  as  related  in  the  second,  third,  and  fourth  verses  of 
chapter  thirteenth.  In  2  Cor.  viii.  23,  we  find  Anoaroloi 
translated  in  our  Bible  "  messengers"  "  Whether  any  in- 
quire of  Titus,  he  is  my  partner  and  fellow-helper  concerning 
you  :  or  our  brethren  be  inquired  of,  they  are  (anooroloi) 
the  messengers  of  the  churches,  and  the  glory  of  Christ." 
The  correctness  of  this  translation  will  not  be  doubted  by 
any  unprejudiced  mind  who  will  take  the  pains  to  examine 
the  context ;  for  it  is  most  evident  that  the  term  is  here 
used  with  reference  to  the  fact,  that  these  brethren  were 
selected  by  the  churches  to  travel  with  the  Apostle,  and  were 
sent  by  him,  in  connection  with  Titus,  with  a  special  am- 
bassage  to  the  Corinthian  church.  The  same  use  is  made 
of  this  word  in  Philippians  ii.  25  :  "  Yet  I  supposed  it  ne- 
cessary to  send  to  you  Epaphroditus,  my  brother,  and  com- 
panion in  labor  and  fellow-soldier,  but  your  messenger, 
(anoazolov,)  and  he  that  ministered  to  my  wants."  So  also 
in  1  Thessalonians  ii.   6:    "  Nor  of  men  sought  we  glory, 


APOSTLESHIP.  21 

neither  of  you,  nor  yet  of  others,  when  we  might  have  been 
burdensome  as  the  Apostles  of  Christ."  Here  it  will  be 
seen,  by  reference  to  the  first  verse  of  this  Epistle,  that  Paul, 
and  Sylvanus,  and  Timotheus,  are  the  persons  who  sent  this 
epistle  to  the  Thessalonian  church ;  and  in  the  verse  just 
quoted,  they  denominate  themselves  "  Apostles  of  Christ" 
But  any  candid  reader  will  at  once  perceive  that  this  term 
is  here  used  in  the  general  sense  of  messengers  or  missiona- 
ries ;  for  they  had,  a  short  time  previous,  completed  a  mis- 
sion among  that  church,  which  mission  is  the  subject  of 
discourse  in  the  chapter  from  which  this  passage  is  quoted. 
The  Thessalonians  are  reminded  that,  while  they  labored 
with  them,  they  supported  themselves,  working  with  their 
own  hands  :  fthis  they  were  not  bound  to  do;  for,  as  the 
Apostles  (or  missionaries)  of  Christ,  who  bore  a  message 
from  him,  and  labored  among  them  in  his  name*  they  might, 
had  they  thought  proper,  have  claimed  a  support  at  their 
hands.  We  might  quote  other  passages  where  this  term  is 
used  in  a  similar  manner,  but  these  are  sufficient  for  our 
present  purpose.  It  is  so  clearly  impossible  to  deny  this 
general  signification  of  cmoGzoJ.og,  that  the  author  of  "  The 
Inquiry"  concedes  that  it  is  used  in  the  New  Testament  in 
this  sense.  He  says — "  Now  it  is  true  indeed  that  the 
term  Apostle  in  its  primary  sense  means  only  a  messenger, 
one  sent ;  and  that  the  word  is  so  used  in  several  places  in 
the  New  Testament  is  also  true.  Yet  nothing  is  easier  than 
to  determine  whether  the  term,  in  any  given  case,  is  to  be 
understood  in  this  primary  sense,  or  specially  of  the  minis- 
terial office.'*  Just  so  we  think,  and  we  are  gratified  to  be 
able  to  agree  with  our  author  at  least  once  in  the  course  of 
the  argument.  But  pray  what  is  the  general  rule  by  which 
this  matter  is  to  be  determined  ?  Our  author  gives  none  : 
but  it  will  be  evident  to  any  candid  mind  who  will  examine 
the  subject,  that  the  rule  we  have  laid  down  above  is  the 
correct  one,  viz.,  that  wherever  it  is  used  to  designate  in- 


2*2  APOSTLESHIP. 

dividuals  who  have  been  sent  upon  a  special  mission  among 
the  churches,  and  with  reference  to  their  transactions  during 
that  mission,  it  is  always  to  be  taken  in  its  primary  signifi- 
cation. 

The  word  anoarolog  has  likewise  an  exalted  official  sig- 
nification. In  this  sense  the  twelve  were  called  Apostles  by 
Christ.  Whenever  this  term  is  used  in  the  New  Testament 
to  express  the  general  office  of  an  individual,  disconnected 
from  any  special  mission,  it  always  shows  that  the  individual 
is,  in  the  high  ministerial  sense,  an  Apostle.  In  this  sense 
no  one  can  show  that  it  is  ever  used  to  designate  any  but 
those  who  were  appointed  by  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  in  per- 
son. We  challenge  any  person  to  point  out  a  single  instance 
in  the  whole  New  Testament,  where  the  term  Apostle  is  used 
to  express  the  general  office  borne  by  an  individual,  unless 
that  individual  was  one  of  the  college  of  Apostles  appointed 
personally  by  Christ.  The  Apostles  may  be  called  such  in  a 
general  or  missionary  sense,  and  may  be  coupled  with  those 
who  are  not  Apostles  in  the  official  sense,  under  that  name : 
thus  Paul  is  coupled  with  Barnabas  in  Acts  xiv. ;  and  with 
Sylvanus  and  Timotheus  in  1  Thess.  But  never  do  we  find 
others  coupled  with  "  the  twelve,"  or  with  any  one  of  them, 
and  called  Apostles  in  the  high  ministerial  sense  of  that 
term. 

That  the  Apostolic  office  was  limited  and  extraordinary 
is  evident  from  the  following  considerations : 

1.  The  Lord  Jesus  Christ  appointed  but  twelve  Apos- 
tles ;  and,  in  the  article  of  their  appointment,  they  received 
no  authority,  direct  or  inferential,  to  perpetuate  their  order  ; 
and  certainly  none  to  enlarge  their  number.  Let  any  one 
take  up  the  history  of  the  appointment  of  the  Apostles,  as 
recorded  in  the  several  Evangelists,  and  decide  for  himself 
whether  he  can  find  any  authority  conferred  on  them,  even 
by  inference,  from  the  language  of  their  Apostolic  commis- 
sion, to  perpetuate  their  order.     The  fullest  account  of  this 


APOSTLESHIP.  23 

transaction  is  given  by  Mark  and  Luke  in  the  passages  stand- 
ing at  the  head  of  this  lecture.  Mark  says  :  "  And  he  goeth 
up  into  a  mountain,  and  calleth  to  him  whom  he  would : 
and  they  came  unto  him.  And  he  ordained  twelve  that  they 
should  be  with  him,  and  that  he  might  send  them  forth  to 
preach,  and  have  power  to  heal  sicknesses,  and  to  cast  out 
devils."  Luke  says  :  "  And  when  it  was  day,  he  called  unto 
him  his  disciples ;  and  of  them  he  chose  twelve,  whom  he 
also  named  Apostles. "  Can  you  find  any  thing  in  this  re- 
corded act  of  their  appointment,  empowering  them  to  per- 
petuate their  order  ? 

But  for  the  argument's  sake,  suppose  we  admit  that  they 
had  power  to  perpetuate  their  Apostolic  college,  would  that 
enable  them  to  enlarge  their  number  ?  For  wise  reasons, 
no  doubt,  Christ  saw  fit  to  limit  his  Apostolic  college  to 
twelve ;  and,  supposing  the  Apostles  had  the  right  to  appoint 
others  to  succeed  them,  pray  where  do  they  get  their  autho- 
rity to  increase  their  number  from  twelve  to  many  thousands  ? 
Suppose  a  board  of  trust  should  be  appointed  by  the  legisla- 
ture, or  any  competent  authority,  for  any  specified  purpose, 
and  that  the  number  of  the  board  should  be  limited  by  the 
appointing  power  to  twelve  persons  :  suppose,  also,  that  this 
board  have  power  to  fill  vacancies,  or  appoint  successors, 
and  thus  to  perpetuate  themselves — would  this  give  them 
any  authority  to  enlarge  their  number  1  Could  they,  under 
such  a  grant,  increase  their  board  from  twelve  to  many 
thousands  ? 

The  Apostles,  too,  understood  that  their  number  was  lim- 
ited to  twelve,  and  that  their  office  was  to  cease  with  them- 
selves. This  is  plainly  seen  in  the  language  they  uttered 
and  the  conduct  they  exhibited  when  they  elected  Matthias 
to  supply  the  vacancy  made  by  the  defection  and  death  of 
Judas.  They  do  not  pretend  to  appoint  a  successor,  or  to 
enlarge  their  number  ;  they  aim  simply  to  fill  a  vacancy,  to 
make  up  the  number  twelve,  by  electing  one  from  among 


24  APOSTLESHIP. 

those  who  had  been  with  Christ  on  earth,  to  be  a  witness 
with  them  of  his  resurrection,  during  the  time  that  the  testi- 
mony of  eye-witnesses  should  be  deemed  necessary. 

It  is  most  evident,  therefore,  that  the  Apostles,  at  their 
appointment,  received  no  power  to  perpetuate  their  order ; 
and  that,  were  we  to  allow  them  to  have  been  invested  with 
such  authority,  it  would  only  prove  that  there  is,  or  ought  to 
be,  at  the  present  day,  in  the  church  universal,  a  college  of 
twelve  Apostles.  Where  such  a  college  is  to  be  found,  we 
leave  for  the  friends  of  the  Hierarchy  to  ascertain.  If  the 
twelve  Apostolic  chairs  are  occupied  by  all  the  diocesan 
bishops  in  connection  with  the  Episcopal  church,  we  must 
conclude,  to  say  the  least,  that  they  are  considerably  full, 
and  we  should  think  that  these  "  lit.  Rev.  Fathers  in  God  " 
could  not  be  very  comfortably  seated. 

2.  It  was  necessary  for  an  Apostle  to  have  seen  the  Lord 
Jesus  on  earth,  and  to  be  appointed  by  him  in  person.  Men 
had  no  power  to  appoint  an  Apostle.  It  cannot  be  shown 
from  a  single  passage  in  holy  writ,  that  such  power  was  ever 
delegated  to  man. 

But  perhaps  it  will  be  asked,  Do  not  the  transactions  of 
the  disciples,  as  set  forth  in  the  record  of  their  election  of 
Matthias,  prove  that  they  had  such  power  1  Certainly  they 
prove  no  such  thing,  as  can  be  easily  shown. 

1.  This  election  was  entirely  unauthorized.  It  took 
place  before  the  Spirit  was  poured  out  from  on  high  ;  it  was 
suggested  by  Peter,  whose  feelings  frequently  outran  his 
judgment ;  we  have  no  account  of  its  being  ratified  by  the 
Lord  Jesus  Christ ;  and  we  hear  nothing  of  Matthias  as  an 
Apostle  after  this  transaction. 

2.  The  very  record  in  the  case  shows  that  the  Apostles 
knew  they  had  no  right  to  appoint  an  Apostle.  They  do 
not  pretend  to  appoint  one  themselves ;  but  select  two,  and 
pray  their  Lord  to  show  which  one  of  the  two  He  had  chosen 
to  take  part  in  the  Apostleship  with  them ;  and  then  they 


APOSTLESHIP.  25 

cast  lots,  so  that  it  might  be  determined  by  the  Lord  through 
the  lot  which  one  He  would  appoint.  "  The  lot  fell  upon 
Matthias,  and  he  was  numbered  with  the  Apostles."  They 
did  not  feel  themselves  authorized  to  set  him  apart  by  the 
laying  on  of  hands,  or  an  official  ordination.  That  we  may 
understand  this  matter  a  little  more  fully,  we  will  here  intro- 
duce the  history  of  the  transaction.  It  is  contained  in  Acts 
i.  15-26.  :  "  And  in  those  days  Peter  stood  up  in  the  midst 
of  the  disciples,  and  said,  (the  number  of  the  names  together 
were  about  a  hundred  and  twenty,)  Men  and  brethren,  this 
Scripture  must  needs  have  been  fulfilled,  which  the  Holy 
Ghost  by  the  mouth  of  David  spake  before  concerning  Ju- 
das, which  was  guide  to  them  that  took  Jesus.  For  he  was 
numbered  with  us,  and  had  obtained  part  of  this  ministry. 
Now  this  man  purchased  a  field  with  the  reward  of  iniquity ; 
and  falling  headlong,  he  burst  asunder  in  the  midst,  and  all 
his  bowels  gushed  out.  And  it  was  known  unto  all  the 
dwellers  at  Jerusalem ;  insomuch  as  that  field  is  called  in 
their  proper  tongue  Aceldama,  that  is  to  say,  The  field  of 
blood.  For  it  is  written  in  the  book  of  Psalms,  Let  his  habi- 
tation be  desolate,  and  let  no  man  dwell  therein  :  and,  His 
bishoprick  let  another  take.  Wherefore  of  these  men  which 
have  companied  with  us,  all  the  time  that  the  Lord  Jesus 
wrent  in  and  out  among  us,  beginning  from  the  baptism  of 
John,  unto  that  same  day  that  he  was  taken  up  from  us, 
must  one  be  ordained  to  be  a  witness  with  us  of  his  resur- 
rection. And  they  appointed  two,  Joseph  called  Barsabas, 
who  was  surnamed  Justus,  and  Matthias.  And  they  prayed, 
and  said,  Thou,  Lord,  which  knowest  the  hearts  of  all  men, 
show  whether  of  these  two  thou  hast  chosen,  that  he  may 
take  part  of  this  ministry  and  apostleship,  from  which  Judas 
by  transgression  fell,  that  he  might  go  to  his  own  place. 
And  they  gave  forth  their  lots,  and  the  lot  fell  upon  Mat- 
thias; and  he  was  numbered  with  the  eleven  Apostles." 
Now  if  this  history  furnish  any  argument  in  favor  of  the  po- 


26  APOSTLESHIP. 

sition  that  Apostles  can  be  appointed  by  men,  it  also  fur- 
nishes a  precedent  as  to  the  manner  of  their  appointment, 
which  ought  to  be  followed  by  the  Apostolic  church  :  so 
that,  when  about  to  appoint  Apostles  or  Bishops,  they  should 
first  choose  from  their  number,  by  a  popular  election,  two 
who  had  been  with  Jesus  from  the  baptism  of  John  until  his 
ascension ;  or,  at  least,  who  had  seen  him  after  his  resur- 
rection, so  that  they  might  be  able  to  bear  witness  to  the 
same.  Then,  they  should  pray  the  Lord  to  choose  between 
the  two,  and  this  choice  should  be  decided  by  their  lot ;  and 
the  one  thus  selected  should  be  numbered  with  their  Apos- 
tles without  even  a  form  of  an  ordination  from  men.  When 
the  friends  of  the  Prelacy  will  comply  with  these  requisites, 
we  may  possibly  admit  that  their  bishops  are  true  Apostles. 
That  it  was  necessary  for  an  Apostle  to  have  seen  the 
Lord,  either  after  his  resurrection  or  both  before  and  after, 
is  evident  from  the  fact  that  a  principal  duty  of  the  Apostle- 
ship  was  to  bear  testimony  to  the  resurrection  of  Christ. 
This  fact  is  admitted  by  our  author  on  page  35  of  his  work, 
in  regard  to  the  twelve ;  but  denied  in  the  case  of  the  other 
Apostles.  He  says,  "  While  we  grant  that  to  have  seen 
Christ  and  testify  as  eye-witnesses  to  the  resurrection,  was 
an  indispensable  mark  of  the  Apostleship  in  the  case  of  the 
twelve  chosen  witnesses,  we  deny  that  it  was  necessary  in 
the  case  of  any  others."  When  our  author  proves  that  any 
others  besides  the  twelve  were  Apostles,  it  will  be  time 
enough  to  attend  to  this  denial.  But  pray  what  is  the  dif- 
ference between  a  necessary  mark  and  a  necessary  requi- 
site ?  And  really  we  should  like  to  know  by  what  logic  he 
proves  that  that  which  is  a  necessary  requisite  to  the  Apos- 
tleship in  the  case  of  the  twelve,  is  not  a  necessary  requisite 
to  the  Apostleship  in  the  case  of  others  1  A  necessary  re- 
quisite is  that  without  which  the  thing  of  which  it  is  a  requi- 
site cannot  exist.  But  if  the  Apostleship  could  not  exist 
in  the  case  of  the  twelve  without  their  having  seen  the  Lord, 


APOSTLESHIP. 


27 


and  being  able  to  bear  testimony  as  eye-witnesses  to  his 
resurrection,  how  could  it  exist  in  the  case  of  others  with- 
out this  same  qualification?  We  will  leave  our  author  to 
answer  this  question  at  his  leisure. 

That  to  see  Jesus  Christ,  and  to  be  appointed  by  him 
personally,  was  necessary  to  Apostleship,  is  also  evident 
from  the  fact,  that  when  the  Lord  Jesus  undertook  himself 
to  fill  the  vacancy  made  in  the  Apostolic  college  by  the  de- 
fection of  Judas,  he  appeared  unto  Saul  of  Tarsus  and  ap- 
pointed him  to  the  Apostolic  office.  That  this  was  the 
object  of  Christ's  showing  himself  to  Saul  in  the  manner  he 
did,  is  evident  from  both  Luke's  relation  of  the  matter,  and 
Paul's  narration  of  the  transaction  some  time  afterwards. 
We  must  either  conclude  that,  in  order  to  make  Paul  an 
Apostle,  this  appearance  was  necessary,  or  that  it  took  place 
without  any  necessity  in  the  case.  We  presume  no  one 
would  be  willing  to  adopt  the  latter  conclusion,  and,  of 
course,  the  former  must  be  correct.  But  if  it  was  necessary 
for  Christ  to  come  down  from  heaven  to  appoint  Paul  to  the 
Apostleship,  it  shows  conclusively  that  he  had  not  delegated 
to  others  the  appointing  power ;  and  that,  if  an  individual 
was  to  be  created  an  Apostle,  it  must  be  done  personally  by 
himself.  By  thus  appearing  to  Saul,  Christ  qualified  him 
to  bear  testimony  to  his  resurrection.  True,  Paul  was  not 
with  Christ  before  his  crucifixion ;  but  his  execution  was  a 
universally  admitted  fact ;  and,  as  he  had  seen  and  conversed 
with  him  since  His  death,  he  could  testify  to  the  fact  of  his 
resurrection.  This  testimony  he  bears  in  his  first  Epistle 
to  the  Corinthians,  while  discoursing  upon  the  subject  of  the 
resurrection.  "  And  last  of  all,  he  was  seen  of  me  also,  as 
one  born  out  of  due  time."  The  peculiar  circumstances 
under  which  Paul  was  appointed  to  the  Apostleship,  and 
especially  the  fact  that  he  received  his  appointment  after  the 
ascension  of  the  Lord  of  Life  and  Glory,  gave  occasion  to 
his  enemies  to  affirm  that  he  was  a  man-made  Apostle — that 


28 


APOSTLESHIP. 


he  had  been  appointed  an  Apostle  by  men,  and  had  received 
his  doctrine  from  men.  Paul,  knowing  that  if  such  a  charge 
could  be  substantiated,  it  would  entirely  invalidate  his  claim 
to  the  Apostleship,  and  that,  if  the  churches  should  be  made 
to  believe  that  such  was  the  fact,  it  would  destroy  their  con- 
fidence in  him  as  an  Apostle,  defends  himself  against  it  with 
all  the  power  of  his  large  mind.  The  existence  of  this  slan- 
der against  his  Apostleship  accounts  for  the  peculiar  manner 
in  which  he  opens  so  many  of  his  Epistles  to  the  several 
churches.  In  his  Epistle  to  the  Romans,  he  introduces  him- 
self as  "  Paul,  a  servant  of  Jesus  Christ,  called  to  be  an  Apos- 
tle, separated  unto  the  Gospel  of  God;"  and  then,  as  though 
this  was  not  sufficient,  he  adds,  in  verse  5,  "  by  whom  (that 
is,  by  Christ)  we  have  received  grace  and  Apostleship,  for 
obedience  to  the  faith  among  all  nations,  for  his  name."  To 
the  Corinthian,  Ephesian,  and  Colossian  churches,  he  intro- 
duces himself  as  "  Paul,  an  Apostle  by  the  will  of  God." 
In  his  Epistle  to  Timothy,  he  speaks  of  himself  as  "  Paul, 
an  Apostle  of  Jesus  Christ  by  the  commandment  of  God  our 
Saviour,  and  Lord  Jesus  Christ."  But  Galatia  was  the  place 
where  this  slander  was  circulated  against  Paul  with  the  most 
industry  and  perseverance :  hence  the  peculiarity  of  a  por- 
tion of  his  Epistle  to  the  Galatian  church.  He  superscribes 
himself  "  Paul,  an  Apostle — not  of  men,  neither  by  man — 
but  by  Jesus  Christ  and  God  the  Father,  who  raised  him 
from  the  dead."  He  then  shows  that  he  could  not  have  re- 
ceived his  office  and  doctrines  from  the  other  Apostles,  by 
the  fact  that  he  never  went  up  to  Jerusalem  to  see  them, 
until  three  years  had  elapsed  ;  and  that,  during  that  visit,  he 
saw  none  of  them  save  Peter,  and  James  the  Lord's  brother  ; 
and  that  it  was  fourteen  years  before  he  made  a  second  visit 
to  Jerusalem.  As  a  consequence,  he  could  not  have  received 
his  Apostleship  and  doctrines,  from  the  other  Apostles,  but 
must  have  obtained  them  immediately  from  Christ.  Those 
who  wish  to  perceive  the  tenor  and  strength  of  the  Apos- 


APOSTLESHIP. 


29 


tie's  argument,  as  given  by  himself,  will  please  read  the  first 
two  chapters  of  his  Epistle  to  the  Galatians.  Again  :  in  1 
Cor.  ix.,  he  asks,  "  Am  I  not  an  Apostle  1  Am  I  not  free? 
Have  I  not  seen  Jesus  Christ  our  Lord  ?" — evidently  evincing 
that.he  believed  it  necessary,  in  order  to  sustain  his  right  to 
the  Apostleship,  to  have  it  admitted  that  he  had  seen  Christ 
the  Lord.  We  find  no  such  peculiarity  as  this  running 
through  the  writings  of  the  other  Apostles ;  and  for  the  very 
good  reason,  that  their  right  to  the  Apostleship  had  never 
been  disputed ;  it  was  admitted  by  all  that  they  had  been 
appointed  to  that  office  by  Christ  in  person. 

3.  The  Apostles,  in  the  official  sense  of  that  term,  pro- 
fessed the  power  to  communicate  thj^miraculous  gift  of  the 
Spirit  to  other  believers,  by  the  imposition  of  hands  ;  and 
not  only  to  work  miracles  themselves,  but  to  bestow  the 
power  of  working  miracles  on  others.  All  this  will  be  evident 
from  the  following  passages  of  Scripture  :  Acts  viii.  14-17, 
"  Now  when  the  Apostles  which  were  at  Jerusalem  heard 
that  Samaria  had  received  the  word  of  God,  they  sent  unto 
them  Peter  and  John  :  who,  when  they  were  come  down, 
prayed  for  them  that  they  might  receive  the  Holy  Ghost : 
(for,  as  yet  he  was  fallen  upon  none  of  them ;  only  they 
were  baptized  in  the  name  of  Jesus.)  Then  laid  they  their 
hands  on  them,  and  they  received  the  Holy  Ghost."  Acts 
xix.  6,  "  And  when  Paul  had  laid  his  hands  upon  them, 
the  Holy  Ghost  came  on  them,  and  they  spake  with  tongues 
and  prophesied."  That  the  Apostles  wrought  miracles,  and 
communicated  to  others  the  power  of  working  them,  is 
so  entirely  evident  from  their  whole  history,  that  we  need 
not  occupy  time  in  quoting  other  passages  to  prove  it. 
These  miraculous  gifts  gave  them  great  power  as  witnesses 
of  the  resurrection.  According  to  Acts  iv.  33,  "  with 
great  power  gave  the  Apostles  witness  of  the  resurrection  of 
the  Lord  Jesus,  and  great  grace  was  upon  them  all." 

4.  The  Apostles  were  inspired  by  God  to  complete  the 

2 


30  APOSTLESHIP. 

canon  of  Scripture ;  and,  as  inspired  men,  they  had  a  gene- 
ral supervision  of  the  infant  New  Testament  churches.  In 
all  difficult  questions,  their  decisions  were  final.  In  this 
sense,  and  in  this  sense  alone,  the  church  is  said  to  be  built 
upon  the  Prophets  and  Apostles.  They,  as  inspired  men, 
have  delivered  to  us  the  revealed  will  of  God,  as  contained 
in  our  sacred  books,  which  furnish  the  foundation  principles 
of  our  faith  and  the  law  of  our  lives.  The  situation  of  the 
churches  in  the  Apostolic  age  was  peculiar.  The  New  Testa- 
ment Scriptures  were  as  yet  unwritten ;  the  Apostles  stood  in 
the  same  relation  to  those  churches  that  our  Bible  now  does  to 
us.  It  is  not  to  be  wondered  at,  that,  under  such  circum- 
stances, they  exercisedalmost  unlimited  power  among  Chris- 
tians. They  were  the*Routh-piece  of  God  to  the  people. 
They  were  invested  with  extraordinary  functions  to  govern 
and  regulate  the  affairs  of  the  church.  Their  authority  was 
universal,  extending  wherever  a  church  was  planted.  They 
exercised  it  with  great  humility,  efficiency,  and  wisdom ; — 
all  going  to  show  that  they  were  under  the  immediate  direc- 
tion of  the  Spirit  of  God.  As  Apostles,  they  had  no  succes- 
sors but  their  writings;  nor  does  the  church,  at  present, 
need  such  an  order  of  men.  She  has  in  her  possession  a 
complete  Revelation,  giving  full  directions  upon  all  import- 
ant points,  sealed  with  Heaven's  signet,  and  enforced  by  the 
authority  of  God. 

We  are  sustained  in  this  view  of  the  subject  by  the  very 
style  and  manner  in  which  writers  of  every  age,  since  the 
period  in  which  they  lived,  have  spoken  of  the  Apostles. 
They  speak  of  the  Apostolic  age,  as  an  age  already  past — 
of  the  Apostolic  Fathers,  meaning  those  eminent  men  who 
were  contemporary  with  the  Apostles — of  certain  things 
which  have  come  down  to  us  from  the  Apostles — but  never 
of  the  Apostles  themselves  descending  or  coming  down, 
either  in  person  or  by  succession,  in  their  Apostolic  capa- 
city.    Whenever  this  style  of  writing  is  departed  from,  it 


apa- 
it  is 

I 


APOSTLESHIP.  31 

always  to  support  a  favorite  theory,  and  sounds  constrained 
and  unnatural.  We  need  not  say  that  we  are  supported  in 
this  view  by  all  Protestant  divines,  except  a  few  Episcopa- 
lians. Many  able  Episcopal  writers  might  be  adduced 
as  witnesses  to  prove  the  limited  and*  extraordinary  nature 
of  the  Apostolic  office.  We  have  time  to  quote  but  two. 
The  first  is  Dr.  Barrow,  a  very  erudite  Episcopal  writer.  In 
his  celebrated  treatise  on  the  Pope's  supremacy,  he  says, 
"  The  Apostolic  office,  as  such,  was  personal  and  temporary  ; 
and  therefore  according  to  its  nature  and  design,  not  succes- 
sive, nor  communicable  to  others  in  perpetual  descendence 
from  them.  It  was,  as  such,  in  all  respects,  extraordinary , 
conferred  in  a  special  manner,  designed  for  special  purposes, 
discharged  by  special  aids,  endowed  with  special  privileges, 
as  was  needful  for  the  propagation  of  Christianity  and  found- 
ing of  churches.  To  that  office  it  was  requisite  that  the 
person  should  have  an  immediate  designation  and  commis- 
sion from  God  :  that  he  should  be  endowed  with  miraculous 
gifts  and  graces,  enabling  him  both  to  assure  his  authority, 
and  execute  his  office  :  that  he  should  be  able,  according  to 
his  discretion,  to  impart  spiritual  gifts  :  and  that  he  should 
govern  in  an  absolute  manner,  as  being  guided  by  infallible 
assistance  to  which  he  might  appeal.  Now  such  an  office, 
consisting  of  so  many  extraordinary  privileges  and  miracu- 
lous powers,  which  were  requisite  for  the  foundation  of  the 
church  and  the  diffusion  of  Christianity,  against  the  mani- 
fold difficulties  and  disadvantages  which  it  then  needs  must 
encounter,  was  not  designed  to  continue  by  derivation;  for 
it  contained  in  it  divers  things  which  apparently  were  not 
communicated,  and  which  no  man  without  gross  imposture 
and  hypocrisy  can  challenge  to  himself."  If  diocesan 
bishops  will  present  us  with  the  characteristics  of  Apostle- 
ship— which  in  this  extract  their  own  Barrow  declares  to  be 
absolutely  necessary — we  will  yield  the  point,  and  confess 
that  they  are  in  very  deed  Apostles. — The  next  witness  is 


32  APOSTLESIIIP. 

Dr.  Willet,  an  eminent  Episcopal  divine.  He  lived  and 
wrote  in  the  reign  of  Queen  Elizabeth.  He  published  a 
large  and  learned  work  called  "  Synopsis  Papismi,"  which 
he  dedicated  to  the  queen.  In  this  work,  he  professes  to 
give  not  only  his  own  opinion  upon  the  subjects  he  discusses, 
but  also  the  opinion  of  the  English  church.  He  says,  "  Every 
godly  and  faithful  Bishop,  is  a  successor  of  the  Apostles. 
We  deny  it  not ;  and  so  are  all  faithful  and  godly  pastors 
and  ministers.  For  in  respect  of  their  extraordinary  call- 
ing, miraculous  gifts,  and  Apostleship,  the  Apostles  have 
properly  no  successors  ;  as  Mr.  Bembridge  the  martyr  saith, 
that  he  believed  not  bishops  to  be  the  successors  of  the 
Apostles,  for  that  they  be  not  called  as  they  were,  nor  have 
that  grace.  That  therefore  which  the  Apostles  were  especially 
appointed  unto,  is  the  thing  wherein  the  Apostles  were  pro- 
perly succeeded ;  but  that  was  the  preaching  of  the  gospel : 
as  Saint  Paul  saith,  he  was  sent  to  preach,  not  to  baptize. 
The  promise  of  succession  we  see  is  in  the  preaching  of  the 
word,  which  appertained!  as  well  to  other  pastors  and  minis- 
ters as  to  bishops."  This  is  just  as  we  believe  :  the  Apostles, 
as  such,  have  no  successors  ;  but,  as  presbyters,  or  simple 
preachers  of  the  gospel,  they  are  succeeded ;  and  every 
faithful  minister  of  Christ  is  in  this  sense  a  successor  of  the 
Apostles.  Again  he  says — "  Seeing,  in  the  Apostles'  time, 
a  bishop  and  a  priest  were  neither  in  name  nor  in  office  dis- 
tinguished ;  it  followeth  then  that  either  the  Apostles  assign- 
ed no  succession,  while  they  lived,  neither  appointed  their 
successors;  or  that,  indifferently,  all  faithful  pastors  and 
preachers  of  the  Apostolic  faith  are  the  Apostles'  successors" 
We  beg  to  add  a  single  remark  of  Richard  Whately,  D.  D., 
the  present  Archbishop  of  Dublin.  In  his  work  entitled, 
"  The  Kingdom  of  Christ,"  first  published  in  this  country 
in  1842,  he  says,  "  The  Apostle  Paul,  in  speaking  of  mira- 
cles as  '  the  signs  of  an  Apostle,'  evidently  implies,  that 
no  one,  not  possessing  such  miraculous  gifts  as  his,  much 


APOSTLESHIP,  OO 

less  without  possessing  any  at  all,  could  be  entitled  to  be 
regarded  as  even  on  a  level  with  the  Apostles.5'  Here  we 
have  ample  and  positive  testimony  in  favor  of  the  view  we 
have  taken  of  the  Apostolic  office.  What  a  pity  that  High 
Church  Episcopalians  cannot  follow  the  example  of  the 
Ephesians,  and  collect  together  these  books  of  their  own 
authors,  which  are  continually  testifying  against  them,  and 
"  burn  them  before  all  men.  "  We  trust  that  before  we  get 
through  we  shall  be  able  to  show  that  they  would  make  a 
large  pile,  and  a  brilliant  conflagration. 

But  let  us  contrast  with  the  foregoing  quotations  a  few 
paragraphs  from  our  author.  On  p.  8  of  the  "  Enquiry," 
we  find  the  following  extract :  "It  will  be  conceded  by  all 
that  it  was  morally  impossible  to  come  unto  God  except 
through  the  mediation  of  his  Son ;  and  was  it  not  equally 
impossible  to  come  unto  the  Son  in  the  appointed  covenant 
way,  i.  e.,  in  his  holy  church,  except  by  the  Apostolic 
ministry?  He  who  despised  or  rejected  them,  (the  Sa- 
viour had  said,)  despised  and  rejected  Him.  They  alone 
were  solemnly  and  officially  commissioned  by  Christ  to 
mediate  then  and  for  ever  between  himself  and  the  world. 
Into  their  hands  he  placed  '  the  keys  of  the  kingdom  of 
heaven ;'  therefore,  there  was  no  entrance  into  that  king- 
dom but  by  them."  Again:  "  Without  the  Apostles  there 
was  no  church ;  for,  as  all  the  facts  of  the  case  do  show,  and 
as  St.  Paul  explicitly  declares,  the  church  was  built  upon 
the  Apostles,  as  they  were  upon  Christ."  "  Our  next  inquiry 
is  whether,  if  the  Apostles  had  successors  in  their  office, 
these  successors  are  not  as  necessary  now  as  at  first  ?  Are 
they  not  the  Apostolic  ministry  still,  perpetuating  their  order 
from  age  to  age  ?  And  is  not  the  church  built  now  upon 
them,  as  it  was  formerly?  When  our  Lord  declared  to  the 
Apostles  after  he  had  invested  them  with  their  commission, 
'  Lo !  I  am  with  you  always,  even  unto  the  end  of  the  world/ 
he    certainly,   in    these  words,   included   their    successors. 


34  APOSTLESHIP. 

Nor  is  it  possible  by  any  method  of  reasoning  to  show  why 
the  successors  of  the  Apostles,  at  the  distance  of  eighteen 
centuries,  do  not  bear  precisely  the  same  relation  in  their 
official  capacity  to  Christ  on  the  one  hand,  and  to  the 
church  on  the  other,  as  the  twelve  bore.  Length  of  time 
surely  cannot  change  or  annul  the  eternal  purposes  of  the 
divine  will.  If  there  could  be  no  church  without  an  Apos- 
tolic ministry  in  the  first  age ;  if  it  was  a  schism  to  cut 
loose  from  their  authority,  how  is  the  case  altered?  It  is 
not  altered ;  and  the  true  church  of  Christ  is  found  in  all 
ages  in  adherence  to  the  Apostolic  ministry."  Here  are 
sentences  which  deserve  to  be  inscribed  on  a  golden  medal 
and  presented  to  be  worn  about  the  neck  of  his  Holiness 
the  Pope.  Let  us  analyze  them  and  see  what  they  con- 
tain : 

We  are  told  that  the  Apostles  and  their  successors — 
diocesan  bishops — are  appointed  mediators  between  Christ 
and  the  world,  in  the  same  sense  as  He  is  mediator  between 
them  and  God  the  Father  :  so  that  it  is  as  morally  impossi- 
ble to  approach  Christ  in  his  covenanted  way,  except  through 
diocesan  bishops,  as  it  is  to  approach  God  the  Father  except 
through  the  mediation  of  his  Son.  And  pray  how  can  we 
approach  Christ  in  any  other  way  than  in  "  his  appointed 
covenanted  way?"  Is  there  an  uncovenanted  approach  to 
the  Saviour?  So  that  it  amounts  to  this:  that  we  cannot 
approach  Christ,  except  through  diocesan  bishops,  as  media- 
tors between  him  and  us,  any  more  than  we  can  approach 
God  the  Father  without  the  mediation  of  his  Son  Jesus 
Christ.  Hearer,  do  you  believe  that  this  is  the  sentiment? 
I  confess  I  could  not  trust  my  eyes  when  they  first  fell  upon 
the  page.  Let  us  examine  it  a  little  more  closely  and  see 
if  we  are  not  entirely  correct — for,  to  make  such  a  state- 
ment without  ample  evidence  would  be  highly  culpable.  He 
states,  "  It  will  be  conceded  by  all  that  it  is  morally  impos- 
sible to  come  unto  God,  except  through  the  mediation  of 


APOSTLESHIP.  35 

his  Son — and  was  it  not  equally  impossible  to  come  unto 
the  Son,  in  the  appointed,  covenanted  way,  i.  e.,  in  his  holy 
church,  except  by  the  Apostolic  ministry?  And,  lest  he 
should  be  misunderstood,  our  author  adds,  "  They  alone" 
(i.  e.,  "  the  Apostles  and  their  successors)  were  solemnly  and 
officially  commissioned  by  Christ  to  mediate,  then  and  for 
ever,  between  himself  and  the  world."  And,  lest  we  might 
possibly  still  think  that  he  meant  to  confine  the  assertion  to 
the  Apostles,  he  adds :  "  Nor  is  it  possible,  by  any  method 
of  reasoning,  to  show  why  the  successors  of  the  Apostles,  at 
the  distance  of  eighteen  centuries,  do  not  bear  precisely  the 
same  relation  in  their  official  capacity  to  Christ  on  the  one 
hand,  and  the  church  on  the  other,  as  the  twelve  bore."  The 
argument,  then,  runs  thus  : 

1.  The  Apostles  and  their  successors  are  appointed  by 
Christ  "mediators"  between  himself  and  the  world;  and  it 
is  as  impossible  to  approach  Jesus  Christ  in  his  covenanted 
way,  except  through  the  mediation  of  the  Apostles  and  their 
successors,  as  it  is  to  approach  God  except  through  the 
mediation  of  his  Son.  But  it  is  entirely  impossible  to  ap- 
proach God  except  through  the  mediation  of  his  Son,  and 
as  impossible  to  approach  Christ  except  in  his  covenanted 
way.  Therefore,  it  is  utterly  impossible  to  approach  Christ 
at  all,  except  through  the  mediation  of  the  Apostles  and 
their  successors. 

2.  Diocesan  bishops  are  the  successors  and  the  only 
successors  of  the  Apostles ;  therefore,  they  are  appointed  by 
Christ  to  mediate  between  him  and  the  world,  and  it  is 
impossible  to  approach  Christ  except  through  the  mediation 
of  diocesan  bishops. 

Surely  those  denominations  who  are  so  unfortunate  as 
not  to  have  diocesans,  are  given  over  to  the  uncovenanted 
mercies  of  God !  But,  my  hearers,  how  far  removed  is  this 
from  Popery  1  Our  author  will  have  to  take  but  one  step 
more  in  order  to  add  the  Virgin  Mary  and  the  departed  saints 


36  APOSTLESHIP. 

to  his  list  of  mediators.  The  Apostle  Paul,  writing  to  Timothy, 
declares  there  is  but  "  one  mediator  between  God  and  men, 
the  man  Christ  Jesus."  Our  author  contradicts  the  Apostle, 
and  says  that  every  diocesan  Bishop  is  a  mediator.  Here 
we  have  the  result  of  usurping  Apostolic  chairs.  The  natu- 
ral tendency  is  to  lead  those  pretenders  to  claim  more  for 
themselves  than  the  Apostles  ever  thought  of  claiming. 

Again  :  we  are  told  in  this  extract  that  the  church  at  the 
present  day  is  built  upon  diocesan  bishops — that  they  are 
the  foundation  of  the  Christian  church :  and  that  beauti- 
ful passage  in  Ephesians  ii.  20  is  quoted  to  prove  it — 
"  And  are  built  upon  the  foundation  of  the  Apostles  and 
prophets,  Jesus  Christ  himself  being  the  chief  corner-stone ; 
in  whom  all  the  building,  fitly  framed  together,  groweth  into 
a  holy  temple  in  the  Lord :  in  whom  ye  also  are  builded 
together  for  a  habitation  of  God  through  the  Spirit."  Any 
careful  reader  of  this  chapter  will  at  once  perceive  that  it 
contains  aj  description  surpassingly  beautiful  of  Christ's 
spiritual  church  under  the  New  Testament  dispensation. 
He  dwells  upon  the  fact  that  the  partition  wall  between 
Jew  and  Gentile  is  broken  down,  and  that  they  are  all  one 
in  Christ,  and  compares  the  church  to  a  building  laid  up  of 
precious  stones,  of  which  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  is  the  corner 
or  foundation  stone.  Upon  him  are  laid  the  Apostles  and  pro- 
phets, upon  them  other  members  of  this  spiritual  building, 
until  the  top-stone  is  brought  forth  in  triumph.  This  ele- 
gant passage  our  author  diverts  from  its  legitimate  meaning, 
and  makes  it  refer  to  external  membership  with  the  visible 
church : — and  not  merely  with  the  visible  church,  but  with 
the  Episcopal  church — a  church  governed  by  diocesan 
bishops.  That  we  have  not  misrepresented  our  author  will 
appear  evident  if  we  again  quote  a  paragraph  or  two. 
"  Without  the  Apostles  there  was  no  church;  for,  as  all  the 
facts  in  the  case  do  show,  and  as  St.  Paul  explicitly  declares, 
the  church  was  built  upon  the  Apostles,  as  they  were  upon 


APOSTLESHIP.  37 

Christ.  The  next  inquiry  is  whether,  if  the  Apostles  had 
successors  in  their  office,  these  successors  are  not  as  neces- 
sary now  as  at  first  ?  And  are  they  not  the  Apostolic  min- 
istry, still  perpetuating  their  order  from  age  to  age?  And  is 
not  the  church  built  now  upon  them  as  it  was  formerly?" 
Further  comment  is  unnecessary.  It  must  be  evident  to  all 
that  every  statement  we  have  just  made  is  contained  within 
the  limits  of  this  short  extract.     The  amount  of  the  whole 

is,    that    DIOCESAN    BISHOPS    ARE    THE     FOUNDATION    OF    THE 

church.  We  would  again  ask  the  candid  hearer,  How  far 
is  this  removed  from  popery?  How  much  difference  is 
there  between  making  the  pope  or  diocesan  bishops  the  rock 
on  which  the  church  is  built?  We  would  venture  to  sug- 
gest whether  the  foundation  would  not  be  more  firm,  and 
the  superstructure  more  secure,  to  have  it  concentrated  in 
one  individual  than  to  have  it  extended  through  several 
thousands?  The  Apostle  Paul  says,  1  Cor.  iii.  11,  "For 
other  foundation  can  no  man  lay  than  that  is  laid,  which  is 
Jesus  Christ."  Our  author  asserts  that  diocesan  bishops 
are  the  foundation  of  the  church.  We  leave  him  to  settle 
the  matter  with  the  Apostle.  Hearer,  did  you  ever  see  a 
bishop — a  diocesan  bishop?  Tf  so,  you  have  seen  a  true 
Apostle — one  who  is  an  Apostle  in  the  same  sense  with  Paul, 
Peter,  and  John — who  "  bears  the  same  relation  to  Christ 
on  the  one  hand  and  the  church  on  the  other  which  they 
bore."  And  pray  what  is  that  relation?  Why,  he  is  "  com- 
missioned to  mediate  between  Christ  and  the  world — he  is  a 
mediator.  True,  you  have  never  seen  Christ  in  the  flesh, 
but  if  you  have  seen  a  diocesan  bishop  you  have  seen  a 
mediator  in  the  flesh.  Besides,  the  church  is  built  upon  that 
bishop ;  he  is  one  of  the  foundation-stones  of  the  church  of 
God ;  he  belongs  to  that  blessed  company  of  Apostles  concern- 
ing whom  it  is  written  in  the  Scriptures — "  built  upon  the 
Apostles  and  prophets,  Jesus  Christ  himself  being  the  chief 
corner-stone."     Certainly  these  bishops  are  worthy  of  the 

2* 


38 


APOSTLESHIP. 


appellation  given  to  them  by  the  only  true  church,  viz., 
"Rt.  Rev.  Fathers  in  God" — and,  if  there  be  a  name  more 
sacred  which  does  not  belong  exclusively  to  the  Deity  him- 
self, they  are  worthy  of  that  name  also.  We  ought  to  bless 
God  that  the  Apostles  have  come  down  to  us — that  the  Apos- 
tolic age  still  continues — that  those  of  you  who  have  the 
happiness  to  be  fathers  are  Apostolic  fathers]  i.  e.,  fathers 
who  live  in  the  days  of  the  Apostles.  What  nonsense  !  and 
worse  than  nonsense !  And  yet  all  this  is  as  true  as  the 
Bible,  if  the  sentiments  of  our  author  are  correct. 

One  word  about  the  keys.  Our  author  says,  "  into 
their  hands"  (i.  e.,  the  Apostles  and  their  successors,  who 
are  diocesan  bishops)  "  he  placed  the  keys  of  the  kingdom 
of  heaven ;  therefore  there  was  no  entrance  into  that  king- 
dom, but  by  them."  That  there  is  a  very  important  sense 
in  which  Christ  has  committed  the  keys  or  the  government 
of  his  church  to  his  ministers,  we  readily  admit ;  but  it 
seems  to  us  that,  in  this  extract,  our  author  shakes  the  keys 
in  such  a  manner  as  to  make  them  jingle  very  much  like  the 
keys  of  St.  Peter  at  Rome.  This  whole  affair  assumes  a 
far  more  serious  aspect  than  I,  at  first,  supposed.  The 
more  I  examine  the  pamphlet,  which  has  been  the  means  of 
calling  me  out  upon  this  subject,  the  more  I  am  convinced 
that  it  is  rife  with  the  seeds  of  the  papacy — and  if  its  author, 
as  is  reported  by  him,  has  never  read  a  page  of  "  The 
Tracts  for  the  Times,"  his  work  has,  in  some  mysterious 
way,  caught  the  infection  of  the  Oxford  School.  From 
such  influences  as  these  may  "  the  Good  Lord  deliver  us," 
for  his  name's  sake. 


LECTURE    III. 


APOSTLE  SHIP—CONTINUED. 

Luke  vi.  13-16. — "  And  when  it  was  day,  he  called  unto  him 
his  disciples ;  and  of  them  he  chose  twelve,  whom  also  he  named 
Apostles  ;  Simon,  (whom  he  also  named  Peter,)  and  Andrew  his 
brother,  James  and  John,  Philip  and  Bartholomew,  Matthew  and 
Thomas,  James  the  son  of  Alpheus,  and  Simon  called  Zelotes,  and 
Judas  the  brother  of  James,  and  Judas  lscariot,  which  also  was  the 
traitor." 

Mark  iii.  13-15. — "And  he  goeth  up  into  a  mountain,  and  call- 
eth  unto  him  whom  he  would  ;  and  they  came  unto  him.  And  he 
ordained  twelve,  that  they  should  be  with  him,  and  that  he  might 
send  them  forth  to  preach,  and  to  have  power  to  heal  sicknesses,  and 
to  cast  out  devils." 

In  the  last  lecture,  the  argument  in  favor  of  the  tempo- 
rary and  extraordinary  nature  of  the  Apostolic  office,  was 
completed.  As  yet  we  have  not  answered  the  argument 
presented  by  our  opponents  to  sanction  their  side  of  this 
question.     This  argument  divides  itself  into  two  parts  : 

I.  They  contend  that  the  ministerial  commission  was 
given  by  Christ  to  the  eleven  disciples  in  [the  character  of 
Apostles,  and  that  it  authorizes  them  to  perpetuate  the  Apos- 
tleship  to  the  end  of  time.  This  part  of  the  subject  will  not 
be  discussed  in  the  present  discourse,  but  postponed  until 
the' next,  in  which  we  intend  to  take  up  the  general  subject 
of  the  ministerial  commission.  It  will  not  be  difficult  to 
show  that,  as  this  commission  did  not  communicate  the 
Apostolic  office,  (for  those  who  received  it  were  Apostles  be- 
fore,) so  neither  did  it  authorize  them  to  perpetuate  that  of- 


40  APOSTLESHIP. 

fice  ;  that  it  was  given  to  them  as  Presbyters ;  and  that  it  is 
handed  down  from  them  in  the  line  of  Presbyters  alone. 

II.  As  a  second  branch  of  the  argument,  they  refer  us 
to  certain  individuals,  besides  the  twelve,  who,  they  affirm, 
were  Apostles  in  the  official  sense  of  that  term.  To  these 
particular  cases  we  will  now  give  our  attention,  and  in  the 
order  named  by  our  author. 

1.  We  are  told  that  Barnabas  was  an  Apostle.  The  re- 
marks of  our  author  upon  the  case  of  this  individual  are 
founded  upon  Acts  xiv.  23  :  "  And  when  they  (Paul  and 
Barnabas)  had  ordained  them  elders  in  every  church, "  &,c. 
Also  Acts  xiv.  14,  "  Which  when  the  Apostles  Barnabas  and 
Paul  heard  of,"  &,c.  He  remarks,  p.  29  of  the  "  Enquiry" 
— "  As  to  Barnabas,  we  know  not  when  he  received  his  or- 
dination to  the  Apostleship,  but  simply  the  fact,  that  he  was 
an  Apostle,  (now  the  fourteenth.)  In  the  fourteenth  verse 
we  read,  '  Which  when  the  Apostles  Barnabas  and  Paul 
heard  of/  &c.  Now  it  is  true,  indeed,  that  the  term  Apostle, 
in  its  primary  signification,  means  merely  a  messenger — one 
sent;  and  that  the  word  is  so  used  in  several  places  in  the 
New  Testament,  is  also  true ;  yet,  nothing  is  easier  than  to 
determine  whether  the  term,  in  any  given  case,  is  to  be  un- 
derstood in  this  primary  sense,  or  specifically  of  the  minis- 
terial office.  In  the  passage  just  quoted,  Barnabas  is  called 
an  Apostle  in  the  same  sense  as  Paul,  without  distinction  ex- 
pressed or  implied."  It  is  a  full  answer  to  this  argument, 
that  these  brethren  were  on  a  special  mission,  and  that  it  is 
with  reference  to  them,  as  missionaries  on  this  tour,  that  they 
are  called  Apostles,  or  messengers.  Our  author  admits,  in 
this  extract,  that  the  word  Apostle  is  sometimes  used  in  the 
Scriptures  in  its  primary  signification  for  a  messenger,  or  one 
sent — and  sometimes  it  is  used  in  a  high  ministerial  sense — 
and  he  says  it  is  easy  to  distinguish  when  this  word  is  used 
in  one  way,  and  when  in  the  other.  There  must,  then,  be 
lome  simple  and  plain  rule  by  which  they  can  be  decided. 


APOSTLESHIP.  41 

The  rule,   as  stated  in  a  previous  discourse,  is  this :  that 
whenever  this  term  is  used  with  reference  to  the  transactions 
of  a  special  mission,   it  is  to  be  understood  in  the  general 
sense  of  a  messenger  or  missionary.     Whenever  it  is  used 
to  express  the  office  of  an   individual,  irrespective  of  any 
special  missionary  work,  it  marks  that  individual  as  an  Apos- 
tle in  the  highest  sense  of  the  term.     By  this  rule,  Paul  and 
Barnabas  are  here  called  Apostles  in  the  general  or  mission- 
ary sense ;  for  they  were  then,  at  the  command  of  the  Holy 
Ghost,  performing  a  special  mission  among  the  churches.  It 
is  rathertrue  that  Paul  was  called  an  Apostle  in  the  same 
sense  with  Barnabas,  than  that  Barnabas  was  called  an  Apos- 
tle in  the  same  sense  with  Paul.     Paul  was  an  Apostle  as  well 
as  Barnabas  in  the  sense  of  a  messenger,  or  "  one  sent ;"  and 
as  such  they  are  coupled  together,  and  called  Apostles.     But 
it  never  can  be  proved  that  Barnabas  was  an  Apostle  in  the 
same  sense  with  Paul,  i.  e.,  in  the  high  ministerial  sense. 
But  our  author  says,  "  Nor  is  there  any  thing  in  the  circum- 
stances of  the  case  which  would  lead  us  to  suppose  that  Bar- 
nabas is,  in  any  respect,  inferior  in  the  ministerial  office  to 
Paul ;  they  act  conjointly,  and  apparently  with  equal  author- 
ity."    This  is  all  true  so  far  as  this  mission  is  concerned. 
They  were  sent  out  as  simple  presbyters,  to  preach,  baptize, 
and  ordain.     They  were  set   apart,   or  consecrated  for  the 
work  of  this  mission,  not  by  Apostles,  but  by  prophets  and 
teachers,  as  will  instantly  be  perceived  by  reference  to  Acts 
xiii.  1-3.     So  that  the  presumption  is  not  quite  as  strong  as 
our  author  supposes,  "  that  Barnabas  had,  on  some  previous 
occasion,  been  ordained  to  the  Apostleship  ;"  we  are  without 
the  least  shadow  of  evidence  that  he  ever  was  an  Apostle. 
The  argument  made  use  of  to  prove  the  Apostleship  of  Bar- 
nabas, founded  upon  the  passage,  "  And  when  they  had  or- 
dained them  elders  in  every  church,"  is,  as  far  as  we  know, 
entirely  original,  and  as  learned  as  it  is  original.     Says  our 
author,  "  The  phrase  c  ordain  them  elders'  is  probably  passed 


42  APOSTLESHIP. 

over  by  most  readers  as  a  mere  Anglicism,  or  mode  of  speech 
characteristic  of  our  language.  And  thus  explained,  the 
word  '  them'  would  seem  to  be  tautological,  and  ^superflu- 
ous ;  inasmuch  as  the  verb  ordain  had  its  proper  nominative 
in  the  preceding  pronoun  '  they.'  But  when  we  refer  to 
the  original,  we  naturally  inquire,  How  came  an  Anglicism 
in  the  Greek  Testament  ?  Evidently  it  has  no  place  there. 
The  phrase  should  have  been  translated  strictly  as  Greek, 
'  XsigoTovijcrcivTEg  ds  avTolgnQEa^vTigovg^  Now,  here  is  no  tau- 
tology— ctvxdlg,  being  in  the  dative  case,  cannot  be  translated 
simply  them ;  but,  *  and  having  ordained,  for  themselves, 
elders.'  This  materially  changes  the  meaning  of  the  whole 
sentence.  For  if  the  Apostles  ordained  elders  for  themselves, 
it  must  be  understood  that  they  ordained  them  as  their  aids 
or  subordinates  in  the  ministry.  They  were  the  presbyters 
of  Paul  and  Barnabas,  exercising  these  offices  by  a  commis- 
sion and  authority  given  to  them  by  these  two  Apostles." 
This  passage  from  our  author  is  so  fraught  with  original 
principles  in  the  philosophy  of  language,  that  to  pass  it  by 
without  "  note  or  comment"  would  be  an  unpardonable  omis- 
sion. Let  us  analyze  it  somewhat,  that  we  may  more  fully 
perceive  and  admire  its  beauties. 

1.  We  are  told,  "  There  is  a  peculiarity  of  expression  in 
this  account  of  the  transaction,  which  is  worthy  of  notice  : 
*  And  when  they  had  ordained  them  elders  in  every  church.'  " 
Permit  us  to  ask,  Where  is  the  peculiarity  of  expression  to  be 
found  ?  We  read  and  hear  just  such  expressions  every  day  of 
our  lives.  They  buik  him  a  dwelling  ;  i.  e.,  a  dwelling  for 
him.  An  undutiful  child  causes  his  parents  great  anguish  of 
soul,  and  gives  them  much  trouble;  i.  e.,  gives  much  trouble 
to  them.  The  attempt  of  jure  divino  exclusive  Episcopalians 
to  prove  that  bishops  are  true  Apostles,  and  that  their  church 
is  the  only  true  cliurch,  causes  them  much  perplexity  and  a 
vast  deal  of  mortification  ;  i.  e.,  causes  for  them  much  per- 
plexity, &x.    The  Presbytery  of  Niagara  met  with  the  First 


APOSTLESHIP.  43 

Presbyterian  Church  of  Lockport,  and  installed  them  a  Pastor ; 
i;  e.,  installed  a  Pastor  for  or  over  them.  "  Paul  and  Barna- 
bas ordained  them  elders  in  every  church ;"  i.  e.,  for  them, 
viz.,  the  members  of  the  several  churches.  Again  :  we  are 
told,  "  The  phrase  '  ordained  them  elders'  is  probably  passed 
over  by  most  readers  as  a  mere  Anglicism,  or  mode  of 
speech  characteristic  of  our  language  ;  and  thus  explained, 
the  word  seems  to  be  tautological  and  superfluous,  in  as 
much  as  the  verb  ordain  had  its  proper  nominative  in  the 
preceding  pronoun  they.' '  That  the  phrase  "  ordain  them 
elders  "  is  "  passed  over  by  most  readers  as  a  mere  Angli- 
cism, or  mode  of  speech  characteristic  of  our  language,"  we 
readily  admit,  and  we  suspect  that  if  our  author  had  passed 
it  over  in  the  same  way,  it  would  have  been  altogether  more 
to  his  credit.  But  we  are  told  if  this  phrase  be  explained 
as  an  Anglicism,  "  the  word  '  them '  would  seem  to  be  tau- 
tological and  superfluous ;"  and  the  way  he  proves  it  is 
wonderfully  conclusive.  "  Inasmuch  as  the  verb  ordain 
had  its  proper  nominative  in  the  preceding  pronoun  they." — 
Indeed !  and  suppose  the  verb  ordain  had  not  its  proper 
nominative  in  the  preceding  pronoun  they,  would  "them" 
be  nominative  case  to  ordain  ?  Does  the  fact  that  a  verb 
has  a  pronoun  preceding  it  in  the  nominative  case,  as  its 
proper  nominative,  prove  that  a  pronoun  which  succeeds  it 
in  the  objective  case  is  "  tautological  and  superfluous  ?" 
"  Mirabile  Dictu  !"  Again,  our  author  offers  it  as  a 
reason  why  this  phrase  should  not  be  passed  by  as  a  "  mere 
Anglicism,"  that  it  cannot  be  found  in  the  Greek  Testa- 
ment. His  words  are — "  But  when  we  refer  to  the  original, 
we  naturally  inquire,  How  came  an  Anglicism  in  the  Greek 
Testament?  Evidently  it  has  no  place  there."  A  very  grave 
and  correct  conclusion,  to  be  sure.  But  pray,  when  did 
our  author  find  this  Anglicism  ?  In  the  Greek  Testament  ? 
or  in  the  English  translation  of  the  Greek  Testament  ?  Is 
it  a  reason  why  a  phrase  found  in  an  English  translation  of 


44  APOSTLESHIP. 

a  Greek  book  should  not  be  passed  by  as  a  "  mere  Angli- 
cism," because,  "  when  we  refer  to  the  original  Greek,  we 
find  that  it  evidently  has  no  place  there?"  Does  our  author 
expect  to  find  Anglicisms  in  the  Greek  language?  Our 
author  proceeds  :  "  This  phrase  should  be  translated  strictly 
as  Greek ;"  i.  e.,  as  we  suppose,  without  any  Anglicisms, — 
"  XeiQOtovriaavzsg  8s  avroig  TtQea^vztQovg" — Now  here  is 
no  tautology ;  avroig,  being  in  the  dative  case,  cannot  be 
translated  simply  "  them" — but  "  having  ordained/br  them- 
selves elders."  Where  did  our  author  ascertain  that  avroig 
ought  to  be  translated  "for  themselves  ?"  It  is  simply  the 
dative  plural  of  the  pronoun  aviog,  avrrj,  avro,  sometimes 
avrov  ;  which  signifies  he,  she,  it ;  and  the  correct  transla- 
tion of  the  dative  plural  is  "for  them" — not  "for  them- 
selves." Thus  our  translators  held,  and  have  rendered  it 
"  them"  in  the  sense  of  "for  them."  If  the  word  used  was 
the  compound  pronoun  "  eavroig"  the  criticism  might  possi- 
bly have  some  little  force.  If  our  author  waits  until  he  can  find 
Anglicisms  in  the  Greek  Testament,  and  prove  that  "  avroig" 
ought  not  to  be  rendered  "them"  in  the  sense  of  "for 
them"  he  will  wait  a  long  time  before  he  makes  Barnabas 
an  apostle.  But  why  all  this  flourish  at  criticism  ?  It  is  to 
prove  that  presbyters  belong,  not  to  the  people,  but  to  the 
bishops;  that  they  are  ordained,  not  for  the  churches,  but 
for  the  prelates.  It  is  to  sustain  a  system  which  makes 
the  bishops  every  thing,  and  the  churches  little  or  nothing. 
How  very  different  this  spirit  from  that  of  the  Apostle  Paul, 
when  he  says — "  For  we  preach  not  ourselves,  but  Christ 
Jesus  the  Lord — and  ourselves  your  servants  for  Jesus' 
sake." 

Our  author  next  endeavors  to  prove  that  Timothy  was 
an  Apostle.  On  page  34,  he  commences  with  the  bold 
assertion,  "  We  know  that  Timothy  was  ordained  by  Paul 
to  the  apostleship."  This  unqualified  assertion  will  be 
found,  upon  examination,  to  be  the  strongest  argument  in 


APOSTLESHIP.  45 

his  whole  chain  of  reasoning,  in  favor  of  the  position  he 
assumes.  But  pray,  how  do  we  know  that  Timothy  was 
ordained  by  Paul  to  the  Apostleship  ?  Our  author  answers, 
"  He  was  to  lay  hands  suddenly  on  no  man."  "  He  was  to 
ordain  such  as  he  thought  suitably  qualified  to  the  office  of 
bishop  or  elder,  (as  the  terms  are  synonymously  used,)  and 
deacon."  This  only  proves  that  Timothy  was  to  ordain 
elders ;  and  to  be  careful  whom  he  inducted  into  the  elder- 
ship. It  has  nothing  to  do  with  the  Apostleship  of  Timothy, 
unless  it  can  first  be  proved  that  none  but  Apostles  have  a 
right  to  ordain,  which  never  has  been  and  never  can  be 
proved.  Again  :  "  Against  an  elder  he  was  not  to  receive 
an  accusation,  but  before  two  or  three  witnesses."  This, 
too,  is  nothing  to  the  point,  unless  it  can  be  proved  that 
none  but  Apostles  have  a  right  to  exercise  discipline  in  the 
churches,  which  will  be  elsewhere  shown  to  be  entirely 
opposed  to  the  whole  tenor  of  Scripture.  "  Them  that 
sinned  he  was  to  rebuke  before  all,  that  others  might  fear." 
And  is  it  true  that  none  but  Apostles  are  to  rebuke  sinners  ? 
He  was  to  see  that  "  supplications,  prayers,  intercessions, 
and  giving  of  thanks  be  made  for  all  men ;"  i.  e.,  order  the 
public  services  of  the  church  of  Ephesus.  And  does  not 
the  Rector  of  Grace  Church  order  the  public  services  of 
that  church?  And  is  he  therefore  an  Apostle?  "Two 
things,"  says  our  author,  "  we  know  with  the  utmost  cer- 
tainty, viz.  : 

"  1.  That  Timothy  was  ordained  by  St.  Paul  to  the  min- 
istry ;  what  grade  of  office  is  not  stated. 

"2.  That  he  exercised  the  ministerial  functions  above 
enumerated.  From  these  premises  the  presumption  is  as 
strong  as  it  well  can  be  " — he  should  have  added,  under  all 
the  circumstances — "  that  he  was  ordained  to  be  an  Apostle. 
Now  add  to  this  the  fact  that  he  is  expressly  called  an  Apos- 
tle (1  Thess.  ii.  6,  compared  with  1  Thess.  i.  1),  and  the 
argument   amounts   to    a   demonstration."      We    shall    see 


46  APOSTLESHIP. 

whether  the  argument  amounts  to  a  demonstration.  With 
reference  to  Timothy  being  called  an  Apostle  in  1  Thess.  ii. 
6,  we  have  before  shown  that  the  term  is  there  used  in  its 
general  and  missionary  sense, — with  reference  to  a  special 
mission,  which  he,  together  with  Paul  and  Sylvanus,  had 
just  completed  among  that  church.  If  this  epistle  had 
opened  with  the  announcement  of  Sylvanus  and  Timotheus 
as  apostles,  the  case  would  have  been  materially  different. 
Had  they  introduced  themselves  to  the  Thessalonian  church 
as  Paul  and  Sylvanus,  and  Timotheus,  Apostles  of  Christ,  it 
would  have  proved  conclusively  that  they  were  all  in  the 
same  sense  officially  apostles.  But  this  term  does  not  occur 
until  verse  sixth  of  the  second  chapter ;  where  they  are  dis- 
coursing about  certain  facts  connected  with  a  special  mis- 
sion which  they  had  accomplished  among  that  people ;  and, 
with  reference  to  this  mission,  they  denominate  themselves 
apostles  or  messengers  of  Christ.  The  apostle  Paul  is  very 
careful,  when,  in  the  introduction  to  his  epistles,  he  couples 
Timothy  with  himself,  never  to  call  him  an  apostle.  Thus, 
in  his  Epistle  to  the  Philippians,  he  writes,  "  Paul  and  Timo- 
theus the  servants  of  Jesus  Christ,  to,"  &c.  To  the  Corin- 
thians, he  writes,  "  Paul,  an  Apostle  of  Jesus  Christ,  by  the 
will  of  God,  and  Timothy  our  brother,  unto  the  church," 
&c.  So  likewise,  to  the  Colossians — "  Paul,  an  Apostle  of 
Jesus  Christ  by  the  will  of  God,  and  Timotheus  our  bro- 
ther." Can  any  one  believe  that  if  Timothy  had  been  an 
Apostle,  Paul  would  have  been  so  careful  never  to  call  him 
an  Apostle,  and  to  distinguish  between  himself  as  an  Apostle, 
and  Timotheus  as  simply  a  brother  in  Christ?  Would  he 
not  rather  have  written  "  Paul  and  Timotheus,  Apostles  of 
Jesus  Christ  by  the  will  of  God,  to  the  church,  &,c.  1  So  it 
seems  to  us — and  here  is  proof  which  can  never  be  sur- 
mounted, that  Timothy  was  not  an  Apostle. 

Again :    Our  author  says,   "  It  is  certain  that  Timothy 
was  ordained  by  St.  Paul  to  the  ministry;  what  grade  of 


APOSTLESHIP. 


47 


office  is  not  stated."  Not  quite  so  certain  as  our  author 
supposes.  We  deny  that  there  is  any  evidence  of  Paul's 
ever  having  ordained  Timothy  to  the  ministry  of  any  grade. 
The  argument  of  our  author  upon  this  point,  appears  upon 
p.  30  of  his  pamphlet.  He  says,  "  The  second  case  of  ordi- 
nation that  presents  itself,  is  recorded  in  St.  Paul's  Second 
Epistle  to  Timothy  (i.  6)  :  '  Wherefore  I  put  thee  in  remem- 
brance that  thou  stir  up  the  gift  of  God  which  is  in  thee  by 
the  putting  on  of  my  hands.'  Here  is  a  positive  declaration 
that  Timothy  was  ordained  by  Paul.  To  what  office  he 
was  ordained,  must  be  gathered  from  the  instructions  given 
him  by  his  ordainer  in  his  two  Epistles  to  him,  but  espe- 
cially the  first."  *  *  *  "  That  the  act  referred  to  was  an 
official  ordination  of  Timothy  to  the  ministerial  office,  cannot 
be  (as  I  believe  it  is  not)  questioned;  for  St.  Paul  makes  it 
the  ground  or  reason  for  the  instructions  which  in  his  Epis- 
tles he  gives  to  Timothy.  These  instructions,  based  upon 
and  referred  to  this  act,  are  not  of  a  temporary  or  partial 
kind,  but  embrace  all  the  leading  and  permanent  and  gene- 
ral functions  of  his  office.  The  act  then  was  an  investiture 
of  Timothy  with  the  ministerial  office,  by  the  Apostle."  We 
are  not  at  all  astonished  at  the  " positive  declarations"  of 
our  author;  for  they  occur  as  frequently  in  his  book  as 
hail-stones  after  a  hail-storm;  but  we  must  confess  that  it  is 
not  a  little  surprising  to  hear  him  so  stoutly  affirm  that  the 
passage,  "  Wherefore  I  put  thee  in  remembrance  that  thou 
stir  up  the  gift  of  God  that  is  in  thee  by  the  putting  on  of 
myjiands,"  contains  "  a  positive  declaration "  that  Timo- 
thy was  ordained  by  Paul,  when  it  says  not  a  word  about 
his  ordination.  And  it  is  still  more  strange  how  he  could 
assert  that  he  believed  it  was  not  questioned  by  any,  that 
this  passage  refers  to  the  "  official  ordination  of  Timothy," 
when  very  superficial  reading  upon  the  subject  would  have 
informed  him,  that  it  has  been  not  only  questioned,  but 
entirely  denied,  by  many  eminent  divines — some  of  whom 


48  APOSTLESHIP. 

are  of  his  own  denomination.  But  the  most  curious  matter 
wrapped  up  in  this  extract  is  yet  to  be  unfolded.  Our 
author  informs  us  that  this  sixth  verse  of  the  first  chapter  of  ' 
the  second  Epistle  to  Timothy,  "  St.  Paul  makes  the 
ground,  or  reason  for  the  instructions  which  in  his  Epis- 
tles he  gives  to  Timothy."  Again,  he  says,  "  These  in- 
structions are  based  upon  and  referred  to  this  act;"  viz., 
the  act  mentioned  in  the  sixth  verse  of  his  second  Epistle. 
Our  author  likewise  informs  us,  that  the  major  part  of 
Paul's  instructions  to  Timothy  with  reference  to  the  minis- 
terial office  is  contained  in  his  first  Epistle  to  that  individual. 
His  words  are — "  To  what  office  he  was  ordained,  must  be 
gathered  from  the  instructions  given  him  by  his  ordainer, 
in  his  two  Epistles  to  him,  but  especially  in  the  first." 
From  all  of  which  we  learn, 

1.  That  the  most  important  part  of  Paul's  instructions  to 
Timothy  is  contained  in  his  first  Epistle. 

2.  That  the  ground,  reasons,  or  foundation  of  these  in- 
structions is  found  in  the  sixth  verse  of  the  second  Epistle.  It 
follows,  therefore,  that  the  instructions  of  Paul  to  Timothy 
are  like  an  inverted  building — having  the  foundation  where 
the  top  ought  to  be.  Strange,  that  the  inspired  Apostle 
should  make  such  a  blunder  in  delivering  his  instructions  to 
his  son  Timothy. 

There  are  certain  very  important  objections  to  any  such 
interpretation  of  the  passage  now  under  consideration  as 
makes  it  refer  at  all  to  the  ordination  of  Timothy. 

1.  The  very  language  of  the  text  forbids  it:  "Where- 
fore I  put  thee  in  remembrance  that  thou  stir  up  the  gift  of 
God  which  is  in  thee  by  the  putting  on  of  my  hands."  Now 
by  substituting  "  ministerial  office  "  for  "  the  gift  of  God," 
we  make  Paul  exhort  Timothy  to  "  stir  up"  the  ministerial 
office.  We  confess  ourselves  at  a  loss  to  know  how  Timothy 
would  proceed  in  obeying  the  injunction  of  the  Apostle;  for 
we  have  yet  to  learn  by  what  process  an  office    can    be 


APOSTLESHIP.  49 

"  stirred  up"  We  can  understand  how  Timothy  could 
"  stir  up"  those  spiritual  gifts  and  graces,  which  were  be- 
stowed upon  him  at  the  time  of  his  miraculous  reception  of 
the  Holy  Ghost,  by  the  imposition  of  the  Apostle's  hands  ;  but 
how  he  could  "  stir  up"  an  office,  is,  to  us,  a  perfect  enigma. 
The  original  verb  here  translated  to  "  stir  up,"  seems  won- 
derfully to  elucidate  the  passage  before  us,  and  to  bring  out 
to  view  its  beauty  and  power.  It  is  Ava^amvQsco ;  which  sig- 
nifies, to  set  on  Jire,  to  light  up,  to  relume.  This  word  is 
compounded  of  Ava — which,  in  composition,  signifies,  among 
other  things,  again ;  and  Zomvgov — which  signifies  embers 
preserved  under  ashes  for  rekindling  a  fire.  Zornvgov  is 
compounded  of  Zaog,  living,  and  Hvg,  fire — living  fire.  Paul 
then  exhorts  Timothy  to  "stir  up" — set  on  Jire,  rekindle, 
and  blow  into  aflame — "  the  gift  of  God  which  is  in  thee  ;" 
as  an  individual  would  stir  up  live  embers  from  among  the 
ashes  which  cover  them,  and  rekindle  them  into  a  blaze. 
This  figure  cannot,  with  the  least  propriety,  be  applied  to 
the  ministerial  office ;  but  it  applies  with  great  beauty  and 
force  to  the  gifts  and  graces  of  the  Christian,  which  are  so 
liable  to  wax  feeble  and  dim,  like  embers  covered  up  for  the 
night,  and  which  so  often  need  to  be  stirred  up  and  rekindled, 
that  they  may  burn  with  that  brilliancy  and  fervor  which 
should  always  characterize  this  holy  fire  as  it  glows  upon 
the  altar  of  every  Christian  hearth.  Besides,  the  injunction 
contained  in  this  passage  stands  connected — not  with  Paul's 
instructions  to  Timothy  on  the  subject  of  the  ministerial 
office  ;  these  are  mostly  contained  in  the  previous  Epistle — 
but  with  his  exhortations  to  him  on  the  subject  of  personal 
piety,  strong  faith,  and  an  abiding  confidence  in,  and  love 
towards  God.  He  says,  "  When  I  call  to  remembrance  the 
unfeigned  faith  that  is  in  thee,  which  dwelt  first  in  thy 
grandmother  Lois,  and  thy  mother  Eunice,  and  I  am  per- 
suaded that  in  thee  also :  wherefore  I  put  thee  in  remem- 
brance that  thou  stir  up  the  gift  of  God  which  is  in  thee  by 


50  APOSTLESHIP. 

the  putting  on  of  my  hands.  For  God  hath  not  given  us  the 
spirit  of  fear,  but  of  power,  and  of  love,  and  of  a  sound  mind." 
It  would  seem  that  a  high  degree  of  faith,  with  its  consequent 
graces,  is  here  called  the  gift  of  God,  which  Timothy  had 
received,  together  with  the  miraculous  effusion  of  the  Holy 
Ghost,  by  the  imposition  of  the  Apostle's  hands.  Paul  sus- 
tained to  Timothy  a  very  interesting  relation ;  he  was  his 
spiritual  father  ;  he  probably  baptized  him  ;  and  when  he  had 
imposed  hands  upon  him,  the  Holy  Ghost  descended  with 
power,  communicating  to  this  young  disciple  strong  faith, 
and  all  the  Christian  graces  in  high  exercise  ;  and  every 
other  gift  necessary  to  fit  him  for  the  work  which  was  before 
him.  Young  Timothy  enters  the  ministry.  Paul,  ever  soli- 
citous for  the  ministerial  usefulness  and  personal  holiness  of 
his  son  in  the  Gospel,  writes  him  two  Epistles.  The  first  is 
taken  up  almost  entirely  with  giving  him  directions  how  to 
discharge  his  official  duties  :  the  last  is  principally  occupied 
with  an  appeal  to  the  heart  of  this  young  disciple,  exhorting 
him  to  deep  personal  piety,  strong  faith,  and  the  constant 
exercise  of  all  those  graces  which  go  to  beautify  and  render 
powerful  the  Christian  character.  He  would  have  him  re- 
member the  precious  gift,  which,  when  he  was  first  convert- 
ed, he  received  from  God  by  the  imposition  of  the  Apostle's 
hands,  and  keep  it  burning  with  brilliancy  and  fervor  upon 
the  altar  of  his  heart. 

We  are  sustained  in  this  view  of  the  passage  under  con- 
sideration, by  the  recent  learned  and  popular  Episcopal 
commentator,  Rev.  George  Townsend.  His  attachment  to 
the  Episcopal  church  will  not  be  doubted  by  any  who  will 
take  the  pains  to  examine  his  work.  In  a  brief  account 
which  he  gives  of  Timothy  and  the  first  Epistle  to  him,  he  says, 
"  Timothy  had  a  special  call  of  God  to  the  work  of  an  evan- 
gelist"— mark,  not  an  Apostle  but  an  evangelist — "  which 
the  elders  of  the  church  at  Lystria  knowing,  set  him  solemnly 
apart  to  the  work  by  the  imposition  of  hands."     And  they 


APOSTLESH1P. 


51 


were  particularly  led  to  this  by  several  prophetic  declarations 
relative  to  him,  by  which  his  divine  call  was  most  clearly 
ascertained.  "  After  this  appointment  by  the  elders,  the 
Apostle  himself  laid  his  hands  on  him ;  not  perhaps  for  the 
purpose  of  his  evangelical  designation,  but  that  he  might 
receive  those  extraordinary  gifts  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  so  ne- 
cessary in  those  primitive  times  to  demonstrate  the  truths  of 
the  Gospel. "  Here,  you  will  perceive,  the  learned  Townsend 
agrees  with  us  as  to  the  object  of  the  Apostle  in  imposing 
hands  upon  Timothy  ;  it  was,  not  to  ordain  him,  but  that  he 
might  receive  the  gift  of  the  Spirit.  The  only  difference 
between  us  is  upon  a  point  of  no  manner  of  importance,  viz., 
as  to  the  time  when  this  imposition  took  place.  We  place 
it  at  an  earlier  period  than  the  time  supposed  by  this  com- 
mentator. 

Again,  1  Tim.  iv.  14,  we  are  informed  that  Timothy 
was  ordained,  or  set  apart  to  his  ministerial  work,  by  the 
presbytery;  and  consequently,  Paul  could  not  have  been 
"  his  ordainer."  "  Neglect  not  the  gift  that  is  in  thee, 
which  was  given  thee  by  prophecy  with  the  laying  on  of 
the  hands  of  the  presbytery."  This  passage,  according  to 
Townsend,  goes  to  show  that  Timothy  was  ordained  to  the 
work  of  an  evangelist,  by  the  presbyters  of  the  church  at 
Lystra,  in  accordance  with  certain  prophecies  concerning 
him,  which  rendered  it  certain  that  he  was  divinely  called  to 
his  sacred  work.  And  this  agrees  with  chap.  i.  18th  verse  : 
"  This  charge  commit  I  unto  thee,  son  Timothy,  according 
to  the  prophecies  which  went  before  on  thee,  that  thou  by 
them  mightest  war  a  good  warfare."  Dr.  Willet  and  other 
eminent  Episcopalians  admit  that  Timothy  was  ordained  by 
the  presbytery,  and  that  the  gift  spoken  of  in  the  passage 
now  under  consideration  is  the  ministerial  office.  He  asks, 
"  Seeing  Timothy  was  ordained  by  the  authority  of  the  elder- 
ship, how  could  he  be  a  bishop,  strictly  and  precisely  taken, 
being  ordained  by  presbyters  ?"     With  this  exposition  of  the 


52  APOSTLESHIP. 

passage,  its  language  and  location  entirely  agree.  We  can 
understand  how  the  ministerial  office  can  be  " neglected" 
much  better  than  how  it  can  be  "  stirred  up"  The  duties 
which  the  Apostle  is  here  enforcing,  are  the  duties  of  the 
ministerial  office.  "  These  things  command  and  teach.  Let 
no  man  despise  thy  youth ;  but  be  thou  an  example  to  the 
believers,  in  word,  in  conversation,  in  charity,  in  spirit,  in 
faith,  in  humility.  Till  I  come,  give  attendance  to  reading, 
to  exhortation,  to  doctrine.  Neglect  not  the  gift  that  is  in 
thee,  which  was  given  thee  by  prophecy,  with  the  laying  on 
of  the  hands  of  the  presbytery.  Meditate  upon  these  things  ; 
give  thyself  wholly  to  them ;  that  thy  profiting  may  appear 
to  all.  Take  heed  unto  thyself,  and  unto  the  doctrine;  con- 
tinue in  them  :  for  in  doing  this  thou  shalt  both  save  thyself, 
and  them  that  hear  thee."  It  is  perfectly  evident  that  the 
Apostle  is  here  discoursing  about  the  public  duties  of  the 
ministerial  office,  and  that  the  phrase,  "  the  gift  that  is  in 
thee"  refers  to  that  office  which  Timothy  had  received  by 
presbyterial  ordination. 

We  are  not.  ignorant  of  the  fact  that  our  author,  fearful 
of  losing  Bishop  Timothy,  endeavors  to  make  both  these 
passages  refer  to  the  same  transaction,  and  to  harmonize 
with  each  other.  After  giving  his  exposition,  as  stated 
above,  of  2  Timothy  i.  6,  "  Wherefore  I  put  thee  in  re- 
membrance that  thou  stir  up  the  gift  of  God  which  is  in 
thee  by  the  putting  on  of  my  hands,"  he  proceeds  to 
state,  "  We  have  now  to  reconcile  this  explanation  of  the 
above  passage,  with  what  is  said,  in  1  Timothy  iv.  14,  "  Neg- 
lect not  the  gift  that  is  in  thee,  which  was  given  thee  by 
prophecy,  with  the  laying  on  of  the  hands  of  the  Presbytery." 
Now  whatever  this  word  Presbytery  means,  in  reference  to 
which  there  is  an  irreconcilable  difference  of  opinion 
among  the  learned,  it  was  only  with  their  consenting  action, 
that  the  ordination  was  performed,  while  the  ordainer  in 
the  official  sense  was  Paul.     In  the  first  passage,  it  is  said 


APOSTLESHIP.  53 

that  the  ordination  was  effected  (dux)  by  the  imposition  of 
the  Apostle's  hands;  and  in  this,  (^tw,)  with  the  laying 
on  of  the  hands  of  the  Presbytery.  In  each  case  these  propo- 
sitions are  used  with  the  genitive,  and  any  lexicographer 
will  inform  us  that  dux,  with  the  genitive,  denotes  the  instru- 
mental cause ;  while  fisra,  with  the  genitive,  signifies 
*  with/  '  together  with,'  The  ordination  was  therefore 
strictly  Apostolical,  and  the  passages  are  reconcilable. "  So 
then  Timothy  is  a  diocesan  Bishop,  Episcopally  ordained ; 
and  rendered  so  by  the  magical  influence  of  the  Greek  pre- 
positions dux,  and  (istcc.  What  wonderful  things  can  some- 
times be  effected  by  the  influence  of  little  words  ! — Espe- 
cially where  they  are  in  Greek  !  But  let  us  examine  into 
this  ordination,  and  see  whether  it  be  truly  canonical.  It 
would  be  a  sad  thing  for  Timothy  to  obtain  bishop's  orders, 
without  conforming  to  the  rules  of  the  only  true  church. 

1.  Then  we  are  informed  that  "  any  lexicographer  will 
tell  us  that  dux  with  the  genitive  denotes  the  instrumental 
cause."  We  will  see  what  "  lexicographers  tell  us."  We 
have  access  to  but  two  Greek  lexicons;  but,  as  "  any  lexi- 
cographer will  tell  us,"  two  are  as  good  as  a  thousand.  The 
first  is  alexicon  by  James  Donnegan,  M.  D.,  which  is  the  one 
now  in  general  use  in  our  classical  schools  and  academies. 
This  lexicon  says,  "dux,  a  preposition  governing  the  geni- 
tive and  accusative  cases :  it  denotes  passage  through, 
transition,  separation,  interval  of  time  and  place,"  &c. 
&,c,  with  a  few  other  minor  significations,  such  as  duration, 
interval,  of,  by,  &c.  "  With  a  genitive  it  signifies  through." 
— Some  of  the  examples  given  are  the  following  :  Iliad  17, 
49,  "  dux  avxevoQ  elv&ev  awnr}," — "  The  point  went  through 
his  neck."  Is  neck  the  instrumental  cause?  According  to 
our  author  it  must  be,  for  it  is  governed  by  &a  in  the  geni- 
tive. Once  more  :  Iliad  3,  61,  "  IJeXexvg  eigivdux  dovpog,'" — 
"  The  axe  drove  through  the  wood."  Here  dovgog,  wood,  is 
in  the  genitive  case,  governed  by  dux — and  is  it  the  instru- 
3 


54  AP0STLESH1P. 

mental  cause  ? — The  other  is  the  "  Scapulas  Lexicon,"  a 
work  as  valuable  as  it  is  rare.  Its  definitions  of  Greek  words 
are  given  in  the  Latin  language.  It  says,  "  dia,  cum  geni- 
tivo,  interdum  significat,  per,"  i.  e.  "  dia,  with  the  genitive, 
sometimes  signifies  through."  Under  this,  we  find  a  long 
list  of  examples,  which  go  to  show  that  this  is  the  case.  It 
then  gives  several  minor  significations  of  the  word  ;  but 
that  just  mentioned  is  the  principal  and  leading  one. 

Let  us  now  put  this  criticism  of  our  author  to  the  test, 
by  examples  in  New  Testament  Greek.  Matt.  ii.  12,  "  And 
being  warned  of  God  in  a  dream  that  they  should  not  re- 
turn to  Herod,  they  departed  into  their  own  country — d.a 
ailing  odov — another  way."  Here  odov  is  in  the  genitive, 
governed  by  dia.  Does  it  signify  the  instrumental  cause  ? 
Matt.  xii.  1,  "  At  that  time  Jesus  went  on  the  Sabbath  day 
— dia  twv  ctttoqIwv — through  the  corn."  Is  corn  the  in- 
strumental cause  ?  Pray  what  did  the  corn  do  ?  There  is 
an  example  of  this  kind  in  the  very  passage  quoted  by  our 
author:  t(  Neglect  not  the  gift  that  is  in  thee — dia  ngo^- 
vuag, — by,"  or  "  in  accordance  with,  prophecy."  Here  dia 
governs  ngocprjTsiag  in  the  genitive  ;  and  if  this  preposition 
makes  Paul  the  ordainer,  it  must  likewise  make  prophecy 
the  ordainer.  So  that  Timothy  was  ordained  by  prophecy, 
as  well  as  by  Paul.  We  readily  admit  that  dia,  with  the 
genitive,  sometimes  signifies  the  instrumental  cause ;  but 
that  it  always,  or  usually  does,  is  not  correct.  Lexicogra- 
phers do  not  tell  us  so. 

Our  author  also  says  that  "  ^£t«,"  with  the  genitive,  sig- 
nifies "  with,"  "  together  with,"  in  the  sense  of  (C  consenting 
action"  If  our  author  means  any  thing  by  "  consenting 
action,"  he  must  mean  that  the  person  or  thing  governed  by 
{i£ia  in  the  genitive  simply  gives  consent  to  the  work  or  la? 
bor  performed  by  some  other  person.  This  is  according  to 
his  own  explanation  of  the  matter.  He  says  expressly,  it 
was  only  with  their  "  (the  presbytery's)  consenting  action 


APOSTLESHIP.  55 

that  the  ordination  was  performed  ;  while  the  ordainer,  in 
the  official  sense,  was  Paul."     Our  author,  in  this  criticism, 
is  as   wide  of  the   mark  as  he   is  in  the   other.     That  [mtv, 
when  iv  governs  the   genitive,   signifies  "  iffith"  "  together 
with"    is    certainly  correct  ;  but  that  it   signifies   "  with" 
merely  in  the  sense  of  that  action  which  only  gives  "  con- 
sent," is  very  far  from  being  correct ; — justm,  with  the  genitive, 
usually  signifies  either  entire  co-operation,  or  instrumentality  : 
once  in  a  great  while  it  is  used  for  "  with,"    in  the  sense  of 
"  against"     We  will  proceed  to  show  that  this  is  the  case 
by  examples  from  the  Greek  Testament.     Matt.   xii.   30, 
"  He  that  is  not — (Ut   tfiov — with  me,  is   against  me  ;   and 
he  thatgathereth  not — ^utt  tpov — with  me,scattereth  abroad." 
Does  this  mean  that  Christ  was  to  do  the  gathering,  and  his 
people  merely  give  their  consent  ?    Or  does  it  express  ' '  entire 
co-operation  ?"  Matt.  xxvi.  55,  "  In  that  same  hour  said  Jesus 
to  the  multitudes,  Are  ye  come  out  as  against  a  thief — ^sia 
[Aa/aiybjv   y.al  |i/Aaw — with  swords  and  staves,  to  take  me?" 
Permit  us  to  ask,  are  the  swords  and  staves  here  used  by  the 
multitudes  as  instruments  or  weapons  to  take  Jesus?  Or  did 
the  multitudes  go  to  take  him,  the  swords  and  staves  merely 
giving  their  consent  ?    Acts  xiii.  17,  "  The  God  of  this  peo- 
ple of  Israel  chose  our  fathers,  and  exalted  the  people  when 
they  dwelt  as  strangers  in  the  land  of  Egypt;    and    [isia 
Pqa%iovo  vyjyXov — with   a    high  arm — brought  he  them  out 
of  it."     Did  God  bring  the  Israelites  out  of  Egypt,  his  high 
arm  merely  giving  consent  ?     Or   was  his  high  arm  the  in- 
strument which  he  used  to  effect  their  escape?     Matt.  xii. 
41,    "  The  men  of  Nineveh  shall  rise  up   in  judgment — 
(xetu  Trjs  */sv sag  Tocvjijg — with  this  generation."     Are  the 
men  of  Nineveh  to  rise  up  in  judgment,  this  generation 
giving  their  consent  ?  Or  is  fiera,  with  the  genitive,  here  used 
for  "  with"  in  the  sense  of  "  against  ?" — causing  the  passage 
to  read,  "  The  men  of  Nineveh  shall  rise  up  in  judgment 
against  this  generation?"    Rev.  xi.  7  furnishes   another  ex* 


°6  APOSTLESHIP. 

ample  where  fisra  with  the  genitive  is  used  to  signify  against. 
So  much  for  our  learned  author's  criticisms  upon  diet  and 
[istcc.  He  would  hardly  have  ventured  upon  so  quixo^-  u 
criticism  of  Greek  prepositions  in  any  other  &•***$  Dut>  as 
a  true  son  of  the  only  true  church,  he  fe  willing  to  bring  his 
literary  reputation  and  place  it  upon  her  altar,  if  necessary, 
to  ordain  Bishop  Timothy.  Alas  !  it  is  but  too  evident  that 
he  will  have  to  figure  in  some  other  language  than  the  Greek 
to  secure  so  desirable  a  result. 

But  suppose,  for  the  sake  of  argument,  we  allow  our 
author  all  he  assumes.  Suppose  we  allow,  that  "  din"  is  the 
ordaining,  and  "  /irra"  the  consenting  preposition  ;  and  that 
Timothy  was  ordained  by  Paul,  the  presbyters  placing  their 
hands  upon  the  candidate's  head,  by  way  of  consent.  Here 
we  have  an  Episcopal  ordination  sure  enough.  But  pray, 
what  orders  would  it  confer  1  Would  such  an  ordination 
make  Timothy  a  bishop?  Is  this  the  way  the  Apostolic 
church  ordain  their  bishops  ?  Is  a  diocesan  in  the  Episcopal 
church  ordained  by  a  single  bishop,  the  presbyters  imposing 
their  hands  by  way  of  consent  ?  Certainly  not.  Presbyters 
have  nothing  to  do  with  the  ordination  of  bishops ;  bishops 
are  ordained  by  bishops  alone.  But  this  is  precisely  the  way 
in  which  the  Episcopal  church  ordain  their  presbyters  :  the 
bishop  ordains,  and  the  presbyters  impose  their  consenting 
hands  upon  the  candidate's  head.  So  that,  with  all  our  au- 
thor's trouble  to  make  out  an  Episcopal  ordination,  he  has 
only  made  Timothy  ^presbyter.  O  Timothy  !  Timothy  !  we 
fear  that,  notwithstanding  the  magical  power  of  the  ordain- 
ing preposition  "  dia"  and  the  cipher-designating  preposi- 
tion "  fxsTn"  the  mitre  of  a  diocesan  bishop  will  never  deco- 
rate thy  brow  !  We  call  "  dia"  the  ordaining  preposition, 
because,  according  to  our  author,  it  is  the  preposition  through 
which  the  office  of  a  bishop  passed  from  Paul's  hands  to 
Timothy's  head.  We  call  "jusia"  the  cipher-designating 
preposition,  because,  according  to  the  same  author,  it  sign 


* 


AP0STLESH1P. 


57 


lies  that  the  presbyters  placed  their  hands  upon  Timothy's 
head,  not  to  ordain  him,  but  merely  to  express  their  consent ; 
showing  conclusively  that  they  were  mere  ciphers  in  the 
transaction.  And,  my  brethren,  so  it  is  at  the  ordination  of 
every  priest  in  the  Episcopal  church.  The  bishop  alone 
ordains,  and  the  priests  place  their  hands  upon  the  candi- 
date's head,  by  way  of  consent ;  but  suppose  they  were  to 
withhold  their  consent,  what  would  be  the  effect  1  Just 
nothing  :  if  the  bishop  thought  proper,  the  ordination  would 
proceed.  At  every  ordination  of  a  priest  in  the  Episcopal 
church,  the  bishop  in  effect  says  to  his  presbyters,  "  The 
church  in  which  I  am  a  prelate  has  vested  in  me  the  sole  or- 
daining power,  but  you,  my  presbyters,  my  inferior  clergy, 
may  make  believe  that  you  have  something  to  do  in  this 
matter,  by  placing  your  hands  upon  the  candidate's  head,  by 
way  of  consent"  This  is  the  exalted  privilege  which  Epis- 
copal priests  have  in  the  transaction  of  setting  apart  their 
brethren  to  the  gospel  ministry. 

Our  author  thinks  Titus  was  an  Apostle.  But  his  case  is 
so  nearly  allied  to  Timothy's,  that  we  shall  pass  it  by  without 
remark.  Perhaps,  after  all,  you  may  feel  disposed  to  ask, 
Were  not  Timothy  and  Titus  extraordinary  ministers — pos- 
sessing powers  beyond  those  possessed  by  pastors  of  the 
present  day  ?  Certainly  they  were ;  they  were  Evangelists. 
Eusebius,  whose  authority  will  not  be  questioned  by  the 
friends  of  the  hierarchy,  informs  us,  that  as  late  as  the  second 
century  "  very  many  of  the  disciples  travelled  abroad,  and 
performed  the  work  of  evangelists ;  ardently  ambitious  of 
preaching  Christ  to  those  who  were  yet  wholly  unacquainted 
with  the  doctrine  of  faith,  and  to  deliver  to  them  the  Scrip- 
tures of  the  divine  Gospel.  These  having  merely  laid  the 
foundations  of  the  faith,  and  ordained  other  pastors,  com- 
mitted to  them  the  cultivation  of  the  churches  newly  planted, 
while  they  themselves,  supported  by  the  grace  and  co-opera- 
tion of  God,  proceeded  to  other  countries  and  nations.    For 


58 


AP0STLESH1P. 


even  then  many  astonishing  miracles  of  the  divine  Spirit 
were  wrought  by  them."  Such  evangelists  were  Timothy 
snd  Titus;  as  their  passing  from  city  to  city,  and  from  church 
to  church,  to  ordain  elders  and  to  "  set  in  order  the  things 
which  were  wanting,"  abundantly  proves.  Hence  Paul 
charges  Timothy  to  "  do  the  work,"  not  of  an  Apostle,  nor  of 
a  diocesan  bishop,  but  of  an  "  evangelist."  The  evidence  in 
the  cases  of  Timothy  and  Titus  appears  to  us  as  clear  as 
though  it  was  written  in  sunbeams. 

We  will  close  this  part  of  our  subject  with  the  opinions 
of  the  celebrated  Episcopal  doctors  Willet  and  Stillingfleet. 
Dr.  Willet  says,  page  236  of  his  Synopsis  Papismi,  "  It  is 
most  likely  Timothy  had  the  place  and  calling  of  an  evan- 
gelist :  and  the  calling  of  evangelists  and  bishops,  which  were 
pastors,  was  divine."  Dr.  Stillingfleet,  in  his  Irenicum,  page 
340,  says,  "  Such  were  the  evangelists  who  were  sent,  some- 
times into  this  country  to  put  the  church  in  order  there, 
sometimes  into  another  ;  but  wherever  they  were,  they  acted 
as  evangelists,  and  not  as  fixed  officers.  And  such  were 
Timothy  and  Titus,  notwithstanding  all  the  opposition  made 
against  it ;  as  will  appear  to  any  who  will  take  an  impartial 
survey  of  the  arguments  on  both  sides."  The  opinions  of 
other  eminent  Episcopalians  might  be  quoted  to  the  same 
effect — but  these  are  sufficient. 

Where  does  our  author  next  go  to  find  a  diocesan? 
Would  you  think  it !  Not  being  able  to  find  one  among 
men,  he  goes  searching  after  one  among  the  angels.  Start 
not,  O  ye  Episcopalians  !  You  have  not  lost  your  rector ; 
he  is  still  on  earth — he  has  only  gone  among  the  angels  of 
the  churches ;  who,  he  thinks,  are  diocesan  bishops.  The 
angels  of  the  seven  churches  mentioned  in  Revelation  were, 
in  his  estimation,  Apostles,  in  the  sense  of  diocesan  bishops. 
He  says,  "  The  Apostleship  was  also  transmitted  to  the  angels 
of  the  seven  Asiatic  churches:  Rev.  ii.  1,  '  Unto  the  angel 
of  the  church  of  Ephesus  write  ;  And  thou  hast  tried  them 


APOSTLESIIIP  59 

which  say  they  are  Apostles,  and  are  not,  and  hast  found  them 
liars.'  This  angel  was  an  individual  who  had  the  supreme 
control  of  the  Ephesian  church;  the  same  exercise  of  disci- 
pline as  was  spoken  of  in  the  cases  of  Timothy  and  Titus,  is 
predicated  of  him.  Was  he  not  then  the  successor  of  Tim- 
othy?" We  would  ask,  was  he  the  successor  of  Timothy? 
Can  our  author  prove  that  Timothy  ever  had  a  successor? 
Every  statement  he  here  makes  is  sheer  assumption.  How 
does  he  know  that  this  angel  was  a  single  individual  ?  There 
are  strong  reasons  for  supposing  that  the  term  angel,  in  the 
figurative  language  of  the  Apocalypse,  denoted  the  whole 
body  of  presbyters  connected  with  that  church ;  and  this  is 
the  opinion  of  some  eminent  Episcopalians.  How  does  he 
know  that  this  angel,  even  if  it  denote  an  individual,  had  the 
supreme  control  of  the  Ephesian  church,  and  that  the  exer- 
cise of  discipline  is  predicated  of  him  ?  Does  he  gather  it 
from  that  passage,  "  And  thou  hast  tried  them  which  say 
they  are  Apostles,  and  are  not,  and  hast  found  them  liars  ?" 
Does  he  not  know  that  the  word  sTisigdvca,  here  translated 
"  hast  tried,"  means  simply  to  search  dut,  to  investigate,  to  dis- 
cover?— that  it  is  translated  "  tried"  in  the  sense  of  "proved" 
and  has  no  reference  whatever  to  judicial  proceedings  of  any 
kind?  "  Thou  hast  proved  those  who  say  they  are  Apostles, 
and  are  not,  and  hast  found  them  liars."  Any  person  might 
do  this  without  having  supreme  ecclesiastical  authority ;  and 
even  without  having  any  authority  at  all.  We  can  but  hope 
that  multitudes  who  bear  no  rule  in  the  churches,  will  never- 
theless prove  those  at  the  present  day,  who  say  they  are 
Apostles,  and  are  not ;  if  they  will,  we  are  sure  they  will  find 
them  most  egregiously  mistaken.  Our  author  continues  : 
"  But  we  are  asked  to  prove  that  this  angel  had  ministers 
under  him" — "  Assuming  this  point,  it  would  not  be  difficult 
to  make  out  an  argument  from  the  address  to  the  angel,  but 
this  is  a  point  to  be  proved ;  not  to  be  assumed."  "  The  proof 
consists  in  these  two  facts  : 


60  APOSTLESHIP. 

"  1.  St.  Paul's  epistle  to  Timothy  is  of  an  earlier  date 
than  this  epistle  of  John  to  the  seven  churches  of  Asia. 

"  2.  In  the  epistle  to  Timothy  it  is  positively  stated  that 
there  were  elders  and  deacons  in  the  church  at  Ephesus. 
Therefore,  a  fortiori,  there  was  a  body  of  inferior  clergy 
when  the  epistle  was  addressed  to  this  angel.  This  point 
is  proved,  and  the  argument  (by  the  objector's  own  confes- 
sion) stands."  Not  quite  so  fast;  we  should  like  to  ask  a 
few  questions  before  we  confess  the  argument  to  stand. 
Suppose  it  should  turn  out  that  angel  here  stood  for  the 
whole  body  of  presbyters,  what  would  then  become  of  our 
author's  inferior  clergy  1  Or  suppose  it  should  be  ascer- 
tained that  this  angel  was  one  presbyter,  who  had  been  ap- 
pointed by  his  brethren  to  moderate  the  presbytery,  and 
that,  through  him  as  president,  the  whole  body  was  ad- 
dressed. What,  then,  would  become  of  his  inferior  clergy  ? 
Or,  suppose  the  angel  was  simply  the  bishop  or  pas- 
tor of  the  Ephesian  church,  and  the  elders  were  a  bench — 
not  of  preaching,  but  of  ruling  elders — what  then  would 
become  of  his  inferior  clergy  1  Presbyterian  churches 
have  angels  in  the  sense  of  bishops  or  pastors,  and 
elders,  and  deacons;  and  yet  they  have  no  inferior 
clergy.  This  conclusive  argument  may  be  spoiled  in  so 
many  ways,  that  we  hardly  think  it  can  be  of  any  great 
value  for  the  purpose  for  which  it  is  framed.  Do  you  say 
"  these  are  all  hypothetical  ?"  Agreed  ;  and  so  is  the  the- 
ory of  our  author;  and  our  suppositions  are  just  as  conclu- 
sive as  his.  We  certainly  can  sustain  any  one  or  all  of 
them  by  the  authority  of  names  equally  great.  There  has 
been  a  great  variety  of  opinions  among  the  learned,  as  to 
who  these  angels  were.  The  most  rational  view  of  the  sub- 
ject appears  to  be,  that  this  term  was  borrowed  from  the 
Jews,  who  had  in  each  one  of  their  synagogues  an  officer — 
the  president,  or  superintendent — who  was  called  the  angel 
of  the  synagogue.     If  this  be  true,  it  would  go  to  show 

% 


APOSTLESHIP.  61 

that  each  particular  church  had  its  angel ;  and  that  he  was 
a  simple  pastor  of  a  church.  We  are  sustained  in  this  view 
by  the  Rt.  Rev.  Archbishop  Whately  of  Dublin,  and  by 
many  other  eminent  divines.  The  Archbishop  says,  (King- 
dom of  Christ,  page  136,)  "  It  seems  plainly  to  have  been  at 
least  the  general,  if  not  the  univerad,  practice  of  the  Apos- 
tles, to  appoint  over  each  separate  church  a  single  indi- 
vidual as  a  chief  governor,  under  the  title  of  ?  Angel/  (i.  e. 
messenger,  or  legate  from  the  Apostles,)  or  '  Bishop/ 
superintendent,  or  overseer.  A  church  and  a  diocese  seem 
to  have  been,  for  a  considerable  time,  coextensive  and  iden- 
tical;  and  each  church,  or  diocese,  (and  consequently  each 
superintendent,)  though  connected  with  the  rest  by  ties  of 
faith,  and  hope,  and  charity,  seems  to  have  been  (as  has 
been  already  observed)  perfectly  independent,  so  far  as  re- 
gards any  control."  Eminent  Episcopalians  have  differed 
very  widely  (as  might  easily  be  shown  by  quotations  if  time 
would  allow)  as  to  who  are  intended  by  these  angels  of  the 
seven  churches — and  we  would  beg  leave  to  suggest,  whe- 
ther it  would  not  be  full  as  well  for  the  sect  to  settle  this 
point  among  themselves,  before  attempting  very  confidently 
to  found  an  argument  upon  the  office  sustained  by  these  un- 
known personages,  in  favor  of  Diocesan  Episcopacy, 

One  author  says  that  Sylvanus,  Andronicus,  and  Junius, 
are  in  Scripture  styled  Apostles,  in  the  official  sense  of  that 
term.  The  case  of  Sylvanus  we  have  already  disposed  of: 
he  is  called  an  Apostle  in  Thessalonians,  in  connection  with 
Paul  and  Timothy  in  the  sense  of  a  missionary,  and  with 
reference  to  a  special  mission,  which  they  had  just  com- 
pleted among  that  church.  The  only  place  where  our  au- 
thor can  possibly  suppose  that  Andronicus  and  Junius  are 
called  Apostles,  is  Rom.  xvi.  7 :  "  Salute  Andronicus  and 
Junius,  my  kinsmen  and  fellow-prisoners,  who  are  of  note 
among  the  Apostles." — And  does  our  author  believe  that  an 
individual  could  not  be  of  note  among  the  Apostles  without 

3* 


62 


APOSTLESHIP. 


himself  being  an  Apostle  ?  Our  author  is  "  of  note"  among^ 
the  people  of  his  charge  ;  is  he  therefore  one  of  that  people  T 
Does  the  fact  that  a  student  at  one  of  our  literary  institu- 
tions is  popular  with  the  faculty,  prove  conclusively  that  he 
is  a  member  of  that  faculty  ?  Really,  it  seems  to  us  that  our 
author  must  have  been  hard  pushed  to  make  out  his  twenty- 
six  Apostles,  or  he  would  not  have  adopted  such  a  subterfuge 
as  this. 

Here  closes  the  argument  under  this  head — and  we  think 
it  must  be  evident  to  every  unprejudiced  mind,  from  a  view 
of  the  whole  case,  that  if  jure  divino  Episcopalians  wait  for 
a  prelate  until  they  find  one  in  the  Bible,  they  will  most  cer- 
tainly lose  their  Apostolic  Succession. 


I 


* 


LECTURE    IV. 


MINISTERIAL  COMMISSION. 

Matt,  xxviii.  19,  20. — "  Go  ye  therefore  and  teach  all  nations, 
baptizing  them  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of 
the  Holy  Ghost ;  teaching  them  to  observe  all  things  whatsoever  I 
have  commanded  you  :  and  lo,  T  am  with  you  always,  even  unto  the 
end  of  the  world." 

John  xx.  21-23. — "  As  my  Father  hath  sent  me,  even  so  send  I 
you.  And  when  he  had  said  this,  he  breathed  on  them,  and  saith 
unto  them,  Receive  ye  the  Holy  Ghost :  whosesoever  sins  ye  remit, 
they  are  remitted  unto  them  ;  and  whosesoever  sins  ye  retain,  they 
are  retained." 

In  these  passages  we  have  the  whole  of  what  is  called 
the  ministerial  commission.  "  Mark  and  Luke/'  says  our 
author,  "  add  nothing  essential  to  these  statements."  This 
commission  contains  the  elements  of  the  great  argument  of 
exclusive  Episcopalians  in  favour  of  the  continuance  of  the 
Apostolic  office  in  the  New  Testament  church.  This  is, 
after  all,  the  instrument  whose  talismanic  charm  is  to  trans- 
form every  diocesan  Bishop  into  a  true  Apostle,  "  bearing 
the  same  relation  to  Christ  on  the  one  hand  and  the  church 
on  the  other  which  the  twelve  bore."  We  see  interwoven 
with  every  argument  framed  to  sustain  the  exclusive  and 
arrogant  claims  of  high  churchmen  such  sentences  as  these, 
taken  from  this  commission  :  "  As  my  Father  hath  sent  me, 
even  so  send  I  you."'  "  Whosesoever  sins  ye  remit,  they 
are  remitted  unto  them."  "  Lo,  I  am  with  you  always,  even 
unto  the  end  of  the  world."     These   sentences  are  runo* 


64  MINISTERIAL    COMMISSION. 

upon  the  voice  of  the  exclusive  preacher,  through  all  the 
changes  of  the  octave  with  an  air  of  triumph,  as  though 
they  contained,  on  the  one  hand,  the  battering  ram  which 
is  to  demolish  the  whole  fabric  of  Presbyterianism  ;  and  on 
the  other,  the  engine  of  erection,  which  is  to  build  upon  its 
ruins  the  magnificent  temple  of  Prelacy.  No  individual 
can  read  the  pamphlet  of  our  author  upon  this  subject, 
without  at  once  perceiving  that  this  commission  forms  both 
the  web  and  the  woof  of  his  argument. 

Perhaps  some  may  be  surprised  to  hear  it  stated  as  a 
prominent  object  of  the  present  discourse  to  prove  that  the 
ministerial  commission  had  nothing  to  do  with  the  Apostle- 
ship.  This  commission*was  given  by  Christ  to  his  disciples 
after  his  resurrection  and  just  previous  to  his  ascension  into 
heaven.  This,  we  are  told  by  our  author,  is  the  only  per- 
manent ministerial  commission  which  Christ  has  ever  left 
with  his  church.  His  words  are,  "  It  hence  appears  that 
there  is  but  one  ministerial  commission  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment, emanating  directly  from  Christ  himself,  viz.,  that  to 
the  Eleven."  Again  he  says,  "  The  Apostles  were  the  only 
commissioned  ministry  of  Christ."  So  that  it  is  here 
expressly  asserted  that  Christ  left  but  one  ministerial  com- 
mission, and  that  this  commission  was  given  to  but  one 
order  of  personages,  viz.  the  eleven.  The  only  powers 
which  it  is  pretended  by  prelates  themselves  are  communi- 
cated by  this  commission  are, 

1.  To  disciple  the  nations  through  the  instrumentality  of 
a  preached  gospel. 

2.  To  administer  the  sacraments  of  Baptism  and  the 
Lord's  Supper. 

3.  To  administer  the  ordinary  government  of  the 
church,  in  which  is  implied  the  admission  and  expulsion  of 
members. 

4.  The  power  of  ordaining  others  to  perform  the 
same  duties,  and  thus  to  extend  and  perpetuate  their 
order. 


MINISTERIAL    COMMISSION.  65 

The  right  to  preach  the  gospel,  to  baptize,  and  to  govern, 
we  are  told,  is  a  direct  and  positive  grant  of  this  com- 
mission. The  right  to  administer  the  Lord's  Supper  and  to 
ordain  is  inferential  :  the  one  growing  out  of  the  clause 
"  teaching  them  to  observe  all  things  whatsoever  I  have 
commanded  you ;"  the  other  being  inferred  from  the  two 
clauses,  "  as  my  Father  hath  sent  me,  even  so  send  I  you," 
and,  "  lo,  I  am  with  you  always,  even  unto  the  end  of  the 
world."  To  show  that  this  statement  is  entirely  correct, 
only  a  single  quotation  from  our  author  will  be  necessary. 
He  says,  "  Let  reference  now  be  made  to  the  second  instru- 
ment, (viz.,  the  one  given  by  Christ  to  his  disciples  just 
before  his  ascension.)      All  there  is  ministerial. 

"  1.  They  preach.     What  ?     The  gospel. 

"2.  They  baptize. 

"  3.  They  teach  the  observance  of  the  Saviour's  com- 
mands.    Of  these  we  know  one  was  the  Lord's  Supper. 

"  4.  They  remit  or  retain  sins  ;  open  or  close  the  door  of 
the  church  to  any. 

"5.  They  acted  in  all  respects  as  Christ  did  and  would 
have  acted  in  the  church,  being  sent  by  him  as  he  was  sent 
by  the  Father. 

"  We  shall  consider  the  point  then  as  fully  made  out, 
that  the  Saviour's  last  charge  to  the  eleven  is  the  ministerial 
commission."  Here,  then,  we  have  the  sentiments  of  our 
author  in  his  own  language ;  and  if,  by  this  language,  he 
means  that  the  ministerial  commission  conveys  any  other 
powers  than  those  which  we  have  defined  above,  he  wanders 
into  paths  where  no  truly  protestant  Episcopalian  would  be 
willing  to  follow  him.  That  this  commission  communicates 
the  powers  we  have  just  delineated,  we  readily  admit.  We 
have  no  dispute  with  exclusive  churchmen  upon  this  part 
of  the  subject.  We  believe  that  this  commission  authorizes 
an  order  of  ministers  iu  the  church  until  the  end  of  time, 
who  have  the  power  to  preach  the  gospel,  to  administer  the 


66  MINISTERIAL    COMMISSION. 

sacraments,  and  in  a  very  important  sense  to  govern,  and  to 
ordain  others  to  discharge  the  same  duties,  thus  extending 
and  perpetuating  their  order,  But  to  affirm  that  these  minis- 
ters are  Apostles,  is  a  complete  begging  of  the  question.  It  is 
an  assumption  which  never  can  be  proved,  as  will  be  abun- 
dantly evident  from  the  following  considerations  : 

1.    This  commission  did  not  in   any  sense  confer   the 
Apostleship  upon  the  eleven. 

They  were  appointed  Apostles  by  Christ  some  time  be- 
fore his  crucifixion.     It  was  under  this  last-named  appoint- 
ment, and  not  under  the  ministerial  commission,  that  they 
acted  as  Apostles,  after  the  ascension  of  their  Lord  and 
Master.    This  fact  is  most  manifest,  from  the  17th,  24th,  and 
25th  verses  of  the  first  chapter  of  Acts.     "  For  he  (Judas) 
was  numbered  with  us,  and  had  obtained  part  of  this  minis- 
try.    And  they  prayed  and  said,  Thou,  Lord,  which  knowest 
the  hearts  of  all  men,  show  whether  of  these  twain  thou  hast 
chosen,  that  he  may  take  part  of  this  ministry  and   apostle- 
ship, from  which  Judas  by  transgression  fell,  that  he  might 
go  to  his  own  place."    From  these  passages  it  is  evident  that 
the  eleven  disciples  acted  as  Apostles  in  the  New  Testament 
church,  under  the  very  appointment  which  they,  in  connexion 
with  Judas,  had  received  from  the  Lord  before  his  crucifix- 
ion.   Judas  was  an  Apostle  in  the  same  sense  in  which  they 
were ;  and  they  propose  to  fill  a  vacancy  made  in  the  Apos- 
tolic college  by  the  defection  and  death  of  Judas.  But  Judas 
never  had  received  the  ministerial  commission ;  for  he  died 
before  that  commission  was  delivered  to  the  disciples.     Pe- 
ter, in  his  remarks  upon  this  occasion,  makes  no  reference 
to  the  ministerial  commission,  but  evidently  refers  to  the 
appointment  of  the  twelve  to  the  Apostleship,  before  the 
crucifixion  of  Christ.     No  unprejudiced  mind  can  examine 
this  narration  without  being  brought  irresistibly  to  the  con- 
clusion, that  the  Apostles,  after  the  ascension  of  their  Lord 
acted  as  Apostles,  under  the  appointment  which  they  receivi 


MINISTERIAL    COMMISSION.  67 

in  connexion  with  Judas,  and  not  under  the  ministerial  com- 
mission. 

2.  None  of  the  powers  which  were  peculiar  to  the  apos- 
tleship  are  contained  in  this  commission. 

In  a  previous  lecture  it  was  shown  that  an  Apostle  must 
have  seen  the  Lord,  and  have  been  appointed  by  him  in  per- 
son, and  thus  be  qualified  to  bear  witness  to  his  resurrection 
— that  he  must  have  the  ability  to  work  miracles,  and  to  be- 
stow the  miraculous  gifts  of  the  Spirit  by  the  imposition  of 
hands — that  he  must  be  inspired,  and  thus  prepared  to  exer- 
cise extraordinary  authority  in  the  churches.  Now  none  of 
these  qualifications  are  communicated  by  the  ministerial 
commission,  as  is  evident  both  from  the  phraseology  and 
from  the  fact  that  none  who  act  under  this  commission  at 
the  present  day  pretend  to  possess  them.  The  powers  com- 
municated by  this  commission  were — to  preach  the  gospel, 
to  administer  the  sacraments,  to  rule  in  the  church,  and  to 
ordain  ;  all  of  which,  as  will  presently  be  shown,  were  per- 
formed by  simple  Presbyters. 

3.  There  was  no  ordination  to  the  apostleship  ;  but,  be- 
fore individuals  could  lawfully  perform  the  duties  contained 
in  this  commission,  ordination  was  necessary.  Perhaps  it 
may  be  an  entirely  novel  idea  to  some  that  the  Apostles,  as 
such,  were  never  ordained ;  but,  if  they  only  examine  criti- 
cally for  themselves,  they  will  be  convinced  that  this  was  the 
case.  We  read  of  individuals  being  "  chosen"  Apostles — 
"  appointed"  Apostles — "  numbered  with"  Apostles — but 
never  of  their  being  ordained  Apostles.  Should  it  be  ob- 
jected to  this  that  we  read,  (Mark  iii.  14,)  "  And  he  ordain- 
ed twelve,  that  they  should  be  with  him,"  &,c,  we  will  let 
our  author  answer  this  objection  in  his  own  language.  He 
says,  p.  16,  "  If,  in  reply  to  what  has  now  been  said,  refer- 
ence should  be  made  to  the  statement  in  Mark  iii.  14,  that 
Christ  '  ordained  twelve,'  as  if  there  were  a  peculiar  force 
and  meaning  in  the  term  used  by  the  evangelist,  it  is  suffi- 


68  MINISTERIAL    COMMISSION. 

cient  to  say  that  the  word  which  is  commonly  translated 
'  ordain'  in  the  New  Testament  is  not  employed  in  this 
place  in  the  original :  the  word  is  eno^at} — he  '  made'  or 
*  constituted' — and  is  never  used  to  signify  the  official  act 
of  ministerial  ordination."  So  likewise  in  Acts  i.  22,  where 
Peter  says,  "  must  one  be  ordained  to  be  a  witness  with  us 
of  the  resurrection,"  the  word  translated  ordain  is  avsXr^r), 
which  signifies  "  to  be  ordained,"  merely  in  the  sense  of 
"  appointed."  It  is  evident,  from  the  bare  perusal  of  the 
several  narratives,  that  the  twelve  were  merely  appointed 
Apostles  by  Christ,  and  not  ordained  to  the  Apostleship. 
When  the  disciples  attempted  to  fill  the  place  of  Judas, 
Matthias  was  not  ordained  an  Apostle  ;  but  the  lot  fell  upon 
him,  and  he  was  numbered  with  the  Apostles  without  any 
ordination.  When  Christ  came  down  from  heaven  to  ap- 
point Paul  an  Apostle,  he  simply  made  the  appointment  with- 
out ordaining  him  to  the  office.  We  read  of  the  ordination 
of  Elders  or  Presbyters,  but  never  of  Apostles.  We  chal- 
lenge our  opponents  to  produce  a  single  case  of  such  ordi- 
nation. The  only  one  they  have  ever  pretended  to  cite  is 
that  of  Timothy  ;  but  we  have  abundantly  shown  that  he 
was  ordained  by  the  Presbytery,  not  to  the  Apostleship,  but 
to  the  work  of  an  Evangelist.  But  when  Christ  gave  the 
ministerial  commission  to  the  eleven  disciples,  before  they 
could  discharge  the  duties  it  enjoins  they  must  be  ordained 
to  the  office.  Hence,  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  proceeded  to 
their  ordination  :  "  He  breathed  on  them,  and  saith  unto 
them,  Receive  ye  the  Holy  Ghost."  This  our  author  affirms 
to  be  an  ordination.  His  words  are  :  "  Therefore  no  argu- 
ment can  be  drawn  from  this  mere  incident  against  our  gen- 
eral position  that  the  ministerial  commission,  in  the  strict 
and  highest  sense  of  the  term,  is  found  in  the  last  solemn 
charge  of  our  Lord  to  his  Apostles,  and  the  attending  cere- 
mony having  all  the  solemnity  and  force  of  an  official  ordi- 
nation.    *  And  when  he  had  said  this,  he  breathed  on  them, 


MINISTERIAL    COMMISSION.  69 

and  saith  unto  them,  Receive  ye  the  Holy  Ghost ;  whose- 
soever sins  ye  remit,  they  are  remitted :  and  whosesoever 
sins  ye  retain,  they  are  retained.'  If  this  is  not  a  formal  in- 
vestiture of  office,  both  in  the  terms  and  in  the  act,  then  it 
would  be  impossible  to  find  such  in  the  whole  compass  of 
the  Bible."  Just  so  we  think.  But,  pray,  with  what  office 
did  this  ordination  invest  them  ?  Not  with  the  Apostleship  ; 
for  they  were  Apostles  before.  Not  with  the  Deaconship, 
for  that  had  not  yet  been  instituted  :  and  we  believe  that  it 
is  not  pretended  by  any  that  the  Apostles  were  ordained  to 
the  deaconship.  To  what  office,  then,  were  they  ordained  ? 
The  conclusion  is  inevitable,  they  were  invested  with  the 
Preshyterial  office :  they  were  ordained  Presbyters  ;  and,  as 
such,  were  commissioned  to  preach,  to  baptize,  to  rule,  and 
to  ordain  other  presbyters  in  the  church  of  God.  The  Apos- 
tleship was  an  extraordinary,  temporary,  and  personal  office; 
and  as  such,  a  mere  appointment  to  it  by  our  Lord  in  person 
was  considered  sufficient,  without  a  formal  ordination.  The 
presbyterate  was  a  permanent  office,  which  was  to  be  handed 
down  from  one  class  of  Presbyters  to  another,  and  thus  con- 
tinue in  the  church  to  the  end  of  time.  It  was  therefore 
deemed  both  expedient  and  necessary  to  have  individuals 
inducted  into  this  office  by  a  formal  and  solemn  ordination. 
4.  The  Apostles,  as  such,  had  no  right  to  perform  most 
of  the  duties  enjoined  in  the  ministerial  commission.  The 
only  duty  which  Apostles  were  appointed  to  perform  in  com- 
mon with  presbyters,  was  that  of  preaching.  We  find  this 
inserted  in  the  article  of  their  appointment,  as  contained  in 
Mark  iii.  14, 15  :  "  And  he  ordained  (or  constituted)  twelve, 
that  they  should  be  with  him,  and  that  he  might  send  them 
forth  to  preach,  and  to  have  power  to  heal  sicknesses,  and 
cast  out  devils."  The  idea  that  the  Apostleship  contains 
within  itself  the  presbyterate,  as  the  greater  contains  the 
less,  is  a  sheer  assumption,  not  only  without  evidence,  but 
in  the  face  of  evidence  to  the  contrary.     It  can  never  be 


70  MINISTERIAL    COMMISSION. 

shown  that  the  Apostles,  merely  as  Apostles,  had  any  right 
to  administer  Christian  baptism  or  to  ordain  :  and  the  rule 
which  they  exercised  was  extraordinary,  growing  out  of  the 
fact  that  they  were  inspired  men ;  and,  as  such,  sustained 
personally  the  same  relation  to  the  church  as  their  writings 
do  at  present.  Hence,  Paul  says,  1  Cor.  i.  17  :  "  Christ 
sent  me  not  to  baptize,  but  to  preach  the  gospel ;"  that  is, 
my  appropriate  work,  as  an  Apostle,  is  not  to  baptize,  but 
to  preach.  True,  he  baptized  a  few  persons ;  but  this  was 
after  he  had  been  constituted  a  presbyter  by  the  presbytery 
of  Antioch. 

That  the  Apostles,  as  such,  were  not  authorized  to  or- 
dain, is  evident  from  the  fact  that  the  Apostle  Paul  was  not 
qualified  to  accompany  Barnabas  upon  an  ordaining  tour 
through  the  churches,  until  he  had  first  been  ordained  a 
presbyter — not  by  Apostles,  but  by  the  prophets  and  teach- 
ers who  constituted  the  presbytery  of  the  church  at  Antioch. 
The  account  of  this  transaction  is  contained  in  Acts  xiii. 
1-3  :  "  Now  there  were  in  the  church  which  was  at  Anti- 
och, certain  prophets  and  teachers ;  as  Barnabas,  and 
Simeon  that  was  called  Niger,  and  Lucius  of  Cyrene,  and 
Manaen,  which  had  been  brought  up  with  Herod  the 
tetrarch,  and  Saul.  As  they  ministered  to  the  Lord,  and 
fasted,  the  Holy  Ghost  said,  Separate  me  Barnabas  and  Saul 
for  the  work  whereunto  I  have  called  them.  And  when 
they  had  fasted  and  prayed,  and  laid  their  hands  on  them, 
they  sent  them  away."  "  This,"  says  Dr.  Miller,  "  is  the 
most  ample  account  of  an  ordination  to  be  found  in  Scrip- 
ture ;  and  it  is  an  account  which,  were  there  no  other,  would 
be  sufficient  to  decide  the  present  controversy  in  our  favor. 
Who  were  the  ordainers  on  this  occasion  ?  They  were  not 
Apostles  :  lest  this  should  be  supposed,  their  names  are 
given.  They  were  not  bishops  in  the  modern  sense  of  the 
word  ;  for  there  were  a  number  of  them  ministering  together 
in  the  same  church.     They  were  the  prophets  and  teachers 


MINISTERIAL    COMMISSION.  71 

of  the  church  at  Antioch.  With  respect  to  these  teachers, 
no  higher  character  has  ever  been  claimed  for  them  than 
that  of  presbyters,  laboring  in  word  and  doctrine.  And  as 
to  the  prophets,  though  the  precise  nature  of  their  endow- 
ments and  office  be  not  certainly  known,  yet  there  is  com- 
plete evidence  that  they  did  not  sustain  that  ecclesiastical 
rank  with  which  Episcopalians  contend  that,  in  the  days  of 
the  Apostles,  the  power  of  ordaining  was  connected.  Still 
these  ministers  ordained  ;  and  they  did  this  under  the  imme- 
diate direction  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  who  cannot  be  supposed 
to  sanction  any  departure  from  an  essential  principle  of 
church  government."  Dr.  Hammond,  one  of  the  most  able 
and  zealous  advocates  for  Episcopacy,  does  not  hesitate  to 
pronounce  this  transaction  a  regular  ordination.  This  is 
likewise  the  opinion  of  that  distinguished  Episcopal  writer, 
Bishop  Taylor.  He  says,  speaking  of  Paul,  "  He  had  the 
special  honor  to  be  chosen  in  an  extraordinary  way,  yet 
he  had  something  of  the  ordinary  too :  for,  in  an*,extraordi- 
nary  manner  he  was  sent  to  be  ordained  in  an  ordinary 
ministry.  His  designation  was  as  immediate  as  that  of  the 
eleven  Apostles,  though  his  ordination  was  not."  The 
learned  Dr.  Lightfoot  was  also  of  the  same  opinion.  "  No 
better  reason/5  says  he,  "  can  be  given  of  this  present  ac- 
tion, than  that  the  Lord  did  hereby  set  down  a  platform  of 
ordaining  ministers  to  the  church  of  the  Gentiles  in  future 
times."  Chrysostom,  one  of  the  early  fathers,  asserts  that 
Paul  was  ordained  at  Antioch,  and  quotes  this  same  passage 
from  Acts  in  support  of  the  position.  We  close  this  part  of 
our  subject  by  adding  the  testimony  of  Archbishop  Whately, 
the  present  primate  of  Ireland.  He  calls  this  transaction 
an  ordination  not  only,  but  one  by  the  elders  of  the  church 
at  Antioch  ;  he  even  goes  so  far  as  to  say  that  this  "  ordi- 
nation by  elders"  was  to  the  Apostle  ship.  This  last  position, 
as  we  have  before  remarked,  is  entirely  untenable  ;  but, 
even  were  it  admitted,  it  would  completely  overthrow  the 


72  MINISTERIAL    COMMISSION. 

whole  fabric  of  exclusive  Episcopacy.  Jure  divino  exclusive 
Episcopalians  will  not  admit  that  presbyters  have  any  right 
to  ordain ;  much  less  that  they  have  a  right  to  ordain  Apos- 
tles or  diocesan  Bishops.  The  language  of  the  Archbishop 
upon  this  subject  is  as  follows  :  "It  is  worth  remarking  also, 
that  as  if  on  purpose  to  guard  against  the  assumption  which 
might  not  unnaturally  have  taken  place,  of  some  supremacy, 
such  as  no  church  was  designed  to  enjoy,  on  the  part  of 
Jerusalem  the  fountain-head  of  the  religion,  it  was  by  the 
special  appointment  of  the  Holy  Spirit  that  Saul  and  Barna- 
bas were  ordained  to  the  very  highest  office,  the  Apostle- 
ship,  not  by  the  hands  of  other  Apostles,  or  of  any  persons 
at  Jerusalem,  but  by  the  elders  of  Antioch.  Some  reason  for 
such  a  procedure  there  must  have  been ;  and  it  does  seem 
probable  that  it  was  designed  for  the  very  purpose  (among 
others)  of  impressing  on  men's  minds  the  independence  and 
equality  of  the  several  churches  on  earth.''  Here,  then,  is 
ample  testimony  drawn  from  the  most  eminent  sources  that 
this  transaction  was  an  ordination  by  the  hands  of  presby- 
ters, and  that  it  was  necessary  to  qualify  Paul  and  Barnabas 
to  go  upon  an  ordaining  tour  through  the  churches  ;  and  ii 
this  be  true,  it  is  plain  that  Apostles,  as  such,  had  not  a 
right  to  ordain ;  but  that  the  Apostle  Paul,  before  he  could 
ordain  others,  must  himself  be  ordained  by  the  presbytery  t< 
the  presbyterate. 

5.  "  Those  who  act  under  the  ministerial  commissioi 
are  appointed  and  set  apart  by  men  ;  but  Apostles  must  re 
ceive  their  appointment  from  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  h 
person.  That  those  who  act  under  the  ministerial  com 
mission  are  appointed  and  set  apart  by  men,  will  not  h 
disputed  by  any.  That  the  Apostles  must  receive  their  ap 
pointment  from  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  in  person,  has  been 
abundantly  shown  in  a  previous  discourse.  In  answering  a 
supposed  objection  to  this  position,  drawn  from  the  appoint- 
ment of  Matthias  to  the  Apostleship,  the  opinion  was  set 


MINISTERIAL    COMMISSION.  73 

lorth  that  this  transaction  was  entirely  unauthorized.  This 
opinion  has  since  been  attacked,  with  some  degree  of  wamth, 
in  an  anonymous  pamphlet,  which  has  been  extensively  circu- 
lated in  this  community,  and  great  pains  has  been  taken  to 
leave  the  impression,  that  the  whole  force  of  our  argument 
depend  upon  the  correctness  of  this  opinion.  We  should 
never  have  referred,  in  this  public  manner,  to  the  contents  of 
this  pamphlet,  were  there  not  good  reason  for  believing  that 
its  author  and  the  author  of  "  The  Enquiry"  are  the  same 
individual.  The  question  whether  the  election  of  Matthias  to 
the  Apostleship  was  an  authorized  transaction,  is  one  about 
which  the  ablest  commentators  have  differed.  We  have 
been  led  to  take  the  negative  of  this  question,  for  the  follow- 
ing reasons : 

1.  Our  Lord,  during  the  time  he  spent  with  his  disciples 
after  his  resurrection,  left  no  directions  with  them  to  fill 
the  place  of  Judas.  If  he  had  done  so,  Peter  would  have 
referred  to  those  directions  instead  of  quoting  a  prophecy, 
which,  while  it  showed  that  that  place  was  to  be  supplied, 
gave  no  authority  to  the  disciples  to  supply  it. 

2.  Instead  of  directing  his  disciples  to  make  an  Apostle, 
Christ  charged  them  to  wait  at  Jerusalem  until  they  should 
be  endowed  with  power  from  on  high. 

3.  This  appointment  took  place  before  the  promised 
Spirit  was  poured  upon  the  disciples  on  the  day  of  Pentecost. 

4.  There  was  no  visible  manifestation  of  the  ratifica- 
tion of  the  act  by  Jehovah  himself,  as  we  may  naturally 
suppose  would  have  been  the  case,  in  that  age  of  the  church, 
in  so  important  and  solemn  a  transaction,  if  it  had  been 
authorized  by  God. 

5.  We  hear  nothing  of  Matthias,  as  an  Apostle,  after  his 
appointment. 

6.  In  due  time,  the  Lord  Jesus  himself  came  down 
from  heaven,  and  appointed  Paul  to  the  Apostleship ;  as  we 
think,  to  fill  the  place  of  Judas. 


74  MINISTERIAL    COMMISSION. 

But  we  do  not  consider  this  point  of  the  least  impor- 
tance to  the  strength  and  conclusiveness  of  our  general 
argument.  Suppose  we  take  the  ground  of  the  Rev.  Trac- 
tarian,  that  Matthias  was  appointed  to  the  Apostleship  by 
the  Lord  through  the  lot,  and  that  he  was  ordained  an  Apos- 
tle by  the  Holy  Ghost  on  the  day  of  Pentecost;  this,  of 
itself,  would  go  very  far  to  show  that  men  have  no  authority 
to  appoint  and  ordain  Apostles.  Again  :  suppose  we  allow 
that  Christ  came  from  heaven  to  add  one  to  his  college  of 
Apostles ;  this  would  afford  a  very  strong  presumptive 
argument  to  prove  that  men  have  no  right  to  make  such 
additions.  Allowing  all  this  to  be  true,  we  have  only  to 
change  the  number  of  Apostles  from  twelve  to  thirteen,  and 
our  argument  remains  as  impregnable  as  ever.  Our  author 
is  mistaken  when  he  supposes  that,  if  he  can  prove  that  the 
Lord  appointed  thirteen  Apostles,  he  has  passed  the  "  Rubi- 
con" of  his  difficulty.  In  order  to  do  that,  he  must  show 
that  Apostles  were  appointed  by  men,  which  never  has  been, 
and  never  can  be  proved.  The  fact  then  that  Apostles  were 
appointed  by  the  Lord  in  person,  while  those  acting  under 
the  ministerial  commission  are  appointed  by  men,  shows 
conclusively  that  the  Apostleship  and  this  commission  are 
distinct  from  each  other. 

6.  All  the  powers  conferred,  and  duties  enjoined  by  the 
ministerial  commission,  were  possessed  and  exercised  by 
presbyters.  We  have  so  entirely  prepared  the  way  for  this 
position,  in  the  previous  part  of  this  discourse,  that  only  a 
few  remarks  are  necessary  to  make  its  truth  evident  to  all. 
That  presbyters  preached  and  administered  the  sacraments, 
is  not  disputed  by  any.  His  words  are — "  That  *  they  ruled' 
and  took  the  oversight  of  the  particular  flock  or  congrega- 
tion where  their  Apostles  had  placed  them,  is,  with  equal 
clearness,  asserted."  Again,  "  Much  has  been  written  to 
prove  that  elders  had  the  rule  and  oversight  of  the  churches. 
Long  and  labored  arguments  have  been  brought  to  fortify  and 


MINISTERIAL    COMMISSION. 


75 


sustain  this  position.  But,  with  us,  this  is  needless.  It  is  grant- 
ed already,  in  the  sense  of  ruling  a  particular  congregation 
or  '  flock.7  But  this  power  was  not  absolute.  It  was  held 
subject  to  the  control  and  final  decision  of  the  Apostles,  in 
every  case  where  it  was  exercised."  Here,  then,  our  author 
admits,  that  presbyters  ruled  in  the  churches  ;  but  then  their 
rule  was  subject  to  the  decision  of  the  Apostles.  Very 
good.  This,  in  a  very  important  sense,  was  undoubtedly  true. 
The  inspired  Apostles  bore  the  same  relation  to  the  presby- 
ters of  that  early  period,  which  their  writings  do  to  the 
presbyters  of  the  present  day.  The  rule  of  the  presbyters 
of  the  present  day  is  subject  to  the  final  decision  of 
the  inspired  Apostolic  writings;  just  as  the  rule  of  the 
presbyters,  at  that  distant  period,  was  subject  to  the  final 
decision  of  the  Apostles  themselves.  We  have  full  as 
much  evidence,  that  the  rule  of  Timothy  and  Titus  was 
subject  to  the  final  decision  of  the  Apostles,  as  we  have  that 
the  rule  of  any  other  presbyters  was  subject  to  their  final 
decision  ;  and  yet  we  are  told  that  Timothy  and  Titus  were 
diocesan  bishops  !  So  that,  if  the  argument  of  our  author 
prove  any  thing,  it  proves  that  there  are  four  orders  of  cler- 
gy in  the  church;  for  even  the  power  of  diocesan  bishops 
was  not  absolute,  "  their  rule  being  subject  to  the  final  de- 
cision of  the  Apostles."  But  let  us  look  for  a  few  moments 
at  the  right  of  presbyters  to  rule,  in  the  light  of  the  Scrip- 
tures. The  first  passage  to  which  I  would  call  your  atten- 
tion is  Acts  xx.  28  :  "  Take  heed,  therefore,  unto  yourselves 
and  to  the  flock  over  which  the  Holy  Ghost  hath  made  you 
overseers,  (or  emaxonoi,  bishops,)  to  feed  the  church  of  God, 
which  he  hath  purchased  with  his  own  blood."  This  was 
Paul's  farewell  address  to  the  elders  of  Ephesus.  He  tells 
them,  verse  25th,  "  And  now,  behold  I  know  that  ye  all, 
among  whom  I  have  gone  preaching  the  kingdom  of  God, 
shall  see  my  face  no  more."  Here  then  we  have  the  Apos- 
tle's last  charge  to  those  elders,  his  parting  advice  to  those 


76  MINISTERIAL    COMMISSION. 

whom  the  Holy  Ghost  had  made  bishops  of  that  church. 
He  charges  them,  "  to  feed  the  church  of  God."  The  word 
here  translated  "  feed,"  is  noipaiveiv,  which  signifies  that 
care  which  a  shepherd  exercises  over  his  flock,  and  certain- 
ly must  imply  government  among  other  things.  The  late 
Dr.  Mason,  by  a  critical  examination  into  the  meaning  of 
this  word,  shows  conclusively  that,  both  in  classical  and  New 
Testament  Greek,  it  implies  rule  or  government.  Nor  was 
this  rule  to  be  "  subject  to  the  final  decision  of  the  Apostle," 
for  he  was  to  leave  them  for  ever  ;  they  were  to  see  his  face 
no  more.  Nor  does  he  say  a  word  to  them  about  a  prelate 
who  was  to  exercise  authority  over  them.  Episcopalians  in- 
form us  that  Timothy  was  at  this  time  bishop  of  Ephesus.  It 
is  passing  strange,  if  this  was  the  case,  that  the  Apostle  says 
not  a  word  to  these  elders  about  their  duties  to  their  dio- 
cesan, nor  even  intimates  that  they  have  one  placed  over 
them.  Any  individual,  upon  a  candid  perusal  of  the  narra- 
tive of  this  transaction,  would  at  once  conclude  that  the 
whole  charge  of  this  church  was  committed  to  its  bench  of 
elders  or  presbyters,  and  that  they  were  to  be  its  supreme 
earthly  rulers.  And  we  strongly  suspect  that  this,  after  all, 
was  the  case. 

That  presbyters  governed  the  primitive  churches,  and 
exercised  the  highest  ordinary  ecclesiastical  authority  in 
those  churches,  is  the  opinion  of  many  eminent  Episco- 
palians. Bishop  Bilson,  in  his  work  against  Seminarius, 
Lib.  I.  p.  318,  says,  "  The  church  was  at  first  governed  by 
the  common  council  of  presbyters ;  that  therefore  bishops 
must  understand  that  they  are  greater  than  presbyters,  rather 
by  custom  than  the  Lord's  appointment ;  and  that  bishops 
came  in  after  the  Apostles."  Dr.  Whittaker,  an  eminent 
Episcopal  divine,  and  divinity  professor  in  the  university  of 
Cambridge,  in  writing  against  Bellarmine  from  2  Tim.  i.  6, 
says,  "  We  understand  that  Timothy  had  hands  laid  on  him 
by  presbyters,  who  at  that  time  governed   the  church  in 


MINISTERIAL    COMMISSION.  77 

common  council."     Other  testimonies  might  be  added,  but 
these  are  sufficient. 

We  will  notice  but  a  single  passage  more  under  this 
head;  it  is  1  Tim.  v.  17  :  "  Let  the  elders  that  rule  well  be 
counted  worthy  of  double  honor,  especially  they  who  labor 
in  the  word and  doctrine."  Here  it  is  asserted  not  only  that 
elders  rule,  but  that  there  is  a  class  of  elders  whose  sole 
business  it  is  to  rule,  and  another  class  who  preach  as  well 
as  rule.  Upon  this  passage  that  distinguished  divine,  Dr. 
Owen,  remarks  :  "  This  would  be  a  text  of  uncontrollable 
evidence  if  it  had  any  thing  but  prejudice  and  interest  to 
contend  with.  On  the  first  proposal  of  the  text,  '  That  the 
elders  who  rule  well  are  worthy  of  double  honor,  especially 
they  who  labor  in  the  word  and  doctrine,'  a  rational  man  who 
is  unprejudiced,  who  never  heard  of  the  controversy  about 
ruling  elders,  can  hardly  avoid  the  apprehension  that  there 
are  two  sorts  of  elders ;  some  who  labor  in  word  and  dec- 
trine,  and  some  who  do  not  so  labor."  The  opinion  of  the 
Episcopal  Doctor  and  Professor  Whittaker,  is  full  as  deci- 
sive. He  says,  "By  these  words  the  Apostle  evidently  dis- 
tinguishes between  the  bishops  and  the  inspectors  of  the 
church.  If  all  who  rule  well  be  worthy  of  double  honor, 
especially  they  who  labor  in  word  and  doctrine,  it  is  plain 
that  there  were  some  who  did  not  thus  labor  :  for,  if  all  had 
been  of  this  description,  the  meaning  would  have  been 
absurd ;  but  the  word  especially  points  out  a  difference.  If 
I  should  say  that  all  who  study  well  at  the  university  are 
worthy  of  double  honor,  especially  they  who  labor  in  the 
study  of  theology,  I  must  either  mean  that  all  do  not  apply 
themselves  to  the  study  of  theology,  or  I  should  speak  non- 
sense. Wherefore,  I  confess  that  to  be  the  most  genuine 
sense  by  which  pastors  and  teachers  are  distinguished  frcm 
those  who  only  govern."  Dr.  Whitby,  in  his  note  on  this 
passage,  says,  "  The  elders  of  the  Jews  were  of  two  sorts : 

"  1.  Such  as  governed  in  the  synagogue. 
4 


78  MINISTERIAL    COMMISSION. 

-  "  2.  Such  as  ministered  in  reading  and  expounding  the 
Scriptures.  And  these,  the  Apostle  declares  to  be  the  most 
honorable,  and  worthy  the  chiefest  reward.  Accordingly, 
the  Apostle,  reckoning  up  the  offices  God  had  appointed  in 
the  church,  places  teachers  before  governments,  I  Cor.  xii. 
28." — Here  then  it  would  seem,  both  from  the  language  of 
Scripture  and  the  confession  of  eminent  Episcopalians, 
that,  so  far  from  elders  not  ruling  in  the  primitive  church, 
there  were  a  class  of  elders  who  did  nothing  but  rule.  And 
we  would  ask,  Where  in  the  Episcopal  church  can  you  find 
such  a  bench  of  ruling  "  elders  f"  We  must  be  a  little  careful 
or  we  shall  prove  that  the  Presbyterian  form  of  government 
is  the  primitive  and  apostolical  form,  and  that  the  Presby- 
terian church  is  the  true  apostolic  church. 

That  presbyters  ordained  we  have  clearly  proved  already. 
Paul  and  Barnabas  and  Timotheus  all  received  presbyterial 
ordination.  We  trust  we  have  shown  conclusively,  that  "  to 
ordain"  was  the  peculiar  and  appropriate  duty  of  presbyters, 
and  did  not  belong  to  Apostles,  as  such.  Here  then  you 
perceive  that  all  the  powers  conferred  and  duties  enjoined 
by  the  ministerial  commission  were  possessed  and  exercised 
by  the  presbyters  in  the  New  Testament  church :  and  this 
goes  to  prove  that  the  commission  was  presbyterial  and  not 
apostolical. 

7.  There  is  no  distinction  made  in  the  New  Testament 
between  bishops  and  presbyters.  These  names  are  applied 
interchangeably,  and  to  the  same  order  of  clergy.  Any  one 
may  satisfy  himself  of  the  truth  of  this  position  by  referring 
to  the  following  passages  of  Scripture  :  Acts  xx.  17-28- 
the  hearer  must  recollect  when  he  reads  this  passage,  that 
the  word  translated  overseers  is  e7tkjko7ioi  (bishops) — Phi- 
lippians  i.  1 ;  Titus  i.  5-9.  There  is  a  passage  contained 
in  1  Pet.  v.  1-2,  upon  which  we  will  make  a  single  remark  : 
"  The  elders  which  are  among  you  I  exhort,  who  am  also  an 
elder,  and  a  witness  of  the  sufferings  of  Christ,  and  also  a 


•' 


MINISTERIAL    COMMISSION.  79 

partaker  of  the  glory  which  shall  be  revealed.  Feed  the 
flock  of  God  which  is  among  you,  taking  the  oversight 
thereof,  not  by  constraint,  but  willingly ;  not  for  filthy  lucre, 
but  of  a  ready  mind."  The  word  here  translated  "  taking 
the  oversight,"  is  emaxonowTtg,  which  signifies  to  exercise 
the  office  and  discharge  the  duties  of  a  bishop ;  so  that 
presbyters  are  not  only  called  bishops  in  Scripture,  but  they 
are  likewise  exhorted  to  exercise  the  office  and  discharge 
the  duties  of  bishops  among  the  churches.  Our  author 
admits  that  elders  are  called  bishops  in  Scripture.  He  says, 
"  And  it  is  even  true  that  the  word  (bishop)  in  the  New 
Testament  is  generally  applied  to  elders."  He  then  goes 
on  to  state  that  the  first  grade  of  ministers  were,  in  the 
early  ages  of  the  church,  called  Apostles  :  while  the  second 
grade  were  called  interchangeably  Bishops  and  Presbyters. 
But  that,  in  process  of  time,  the  name  of  Apostle,  from  the 
peculiar  reverence  attached  to  it,  (the  first  Apostles  being 
inspired,)  seems  to  have  been  dropped  ;  and  the  term  Bishop, 
taken  in  its  place,  whilst  the  term  Presbyter  was  alone 
retained  by  the  second  order  of  ministers.  Upon  this  quo- 
tation we  would  make  the  following  remarks  : — 

1.  If  the  Apostles  are  the  only  diocesan  bishops  to  be 
found  in  the  Scriptures,  then  indeed  was  the  primitive  church 
without  such  bishops  ;  for  it  is  most  evident  that  the  Apos- 
tles were  not  diocesans  at  ail,  but  special  missionaries,  en- 
dowed with  extraordinary  powers,  whose  offices  ceased  with 
themselves. 

2.  The  fact  that  presbyters  are  called  bishops  in  the 
Scriptures,  and  that  they  are  the  only  Scripture  bishops, 
goes  very  far  to  show  that  they  were  the  only  permanent 
spiritual  overseers  appointed  by  Christ  and  his  Apostles  in 
the  churches. 

3.  The  idea  that,  in  the  first  ages,  the  successors  of  the 
Apostles,  who  constitute  the  first  order  of  the  ministry,  were 

ailed  Apostles ;  and  that,  in  process  of  time,  out  of  rever- 


80  MINISTERIAL    COMMISSION. 

ence  or  modesty,  they  dropped  the  term  Apostle  and  assumed 
one  of  the  names  used  to  designate  the  second  order,  is  not 
only  unsustained  by  the  imperial  record,  but  is  entirely  con- 
tradicted by  that  analogy  which  is  deducible  from  the 
whole  history  of  our  race.  Who  ever  heard  of  a  class  of  in- 
dividuals having  a  right  to  an  office,  out  of  reverence  or 
modesty  relinquishing  its  appropriate  name,  and  assuming 
that  of  a  lower  official  grade?  If  there  are  any  such  instances 
upon  the  page  of  history,  we  can  only  say  they  have  never 
met  our  eye.  And  especially  is  it  passing  strange  that 
those  who  were  true  Apostles  should,  out  of  reverence  or  mod- 
esty, relinquish  the  very  name  which  had  been  bestowed  on 
them  by  their  divine  Lord  and  Master  !  We  know  that  our 
author  quotes  Theodoret  to  sustain  his  position.  His  words 
are,  "  The  same  persons  were  anciently  called  Bishops  and 
Presbyters,  and  they  whom  we  now  call  Bishops  were  then  call- 
ed Apostles,  but  in  process  of  time  the  name  of  Apostles  was 
appropriated  to  them  who  were  Apostles  in  the  strict  sense ; 
and  the  rest,  who  were  formerly  called  Apostles,  were  styled 
Bishops."  It  is  worthy  of  remark,  that,  according  to  Theo- 
doret, those  who  were  anciently  called  Apostles,  but  were 
afterwards  called  Bishops,  were  not  Apostles  in  the  "  strict 
sense"  of  that  term.  The  words  which  he  uses,  and  which 
are  here  translated  "  Apostles  in  the  strict  sense,"  are  "  al- 
Tj&cog  anoaxoloi"  which  signify  "  Apostles  indeed,"  or  "  true 
Apostles  ;"  so  that,  according  to  the  testimony  of  the  indi- 
vidual quoted  by  our  author  himself,  those  who  were  called 
Apostles  and  afterwards  Bishops  were  not  "Apostles  indeed" 
or  "  true  Apostles  ;"  and  if  they  were  not  "  true  Apostles," 
they  were  not  Apostles  at  all.  The  fact  was,  as  stated  by 
Eusebius,  that  in  the  early  period  of  the  church  "  many  were 
called  Apostles  by  way  of  imitation" — and  in  the  larger  and 
general  acceptation  of  that  term ;  but  in  process  of  time, 
this  use  of  the  term  was  abandoned,  and  it  was  confined 
to   those   who    were  "indeed"    or    "truly"    the  inspired 


i 


MINISTERIAL    COMMISSION.  81 

Apostles  of  Christ.  But  suppose  Theodoret  had  said,  in 
so  many  words,  "  Those  whom  we  now  call  Bishops  are  in 
the  true  sense  Apostles,  the  only  successors  of  the  Apostles 
of  Christ ;  and  in  the  early  ages  of  the  church  they  were 
called  Apostles,  but  in  process  of  time  that  name  was  dropped, 
and  they  are  now  called  Bishops,"  pray  what  could  it  prove? 
Simply  that  this  was  the  opinion  of  Theodoret.  And  who 
was  Theodoret  ?  He  was  a  writer  of  the  fifth  century,  when 
diocesan  Episcopacy  had  become  firmly  established  in  the 
church,  and  was  first  verging  towards  its  legitimate  result — 
the  papacy.  Those  who  live  hundreds  of  years  hence  might, 
with  the  same  propriety,  quote  the  pamphlet  of  our  author  in 
favor  of  diocesan  episcopacy,  as  he  can  quote  Theodoret. 
The  more  clearly  to  illustrate  this  point,  let  us  suppose 
Lockport  to  become  an  immense  city,  having  its  splendid 
palaces  and  magnificent  public  edifices.  In  process  of  time, 
it  is  visited  with  an  earthquake,  and  entombed  beneath  the 
surface  of  the  earth*.  Ages  roll  on,  and  the  place  where  this 
city  stood  is  unknown.  An  antiquarian,  eccentric  and  per- 
severing in  his  researches,  visits  this  spot,  and  thinks  he  has 
discovered  some  indications  that  here  lies  a  buried  city. 
Being  a  gentleman  of  large  fortune,  and  able  to  command 
aid  to  any  extent,  he  employs  a  multitude  of  hands,  and  com- 
mences excavating  the  earth.  They  succeed  in  uncovering 
a  portion  of  its  splendid  ruins,  and  find,  among  other  things, 
a  well  selected  library.  It  is  the  library  of  our  author. 
They  hand  up  volume  after  volume,  until  they  come  to  a 
stack  of  pamphlets.  They  all  appear  alike,  and  there  is  a  great 
probability  that  they  are  so  many  copies  of  the  same  produc- 
tion. They  are  somewhat  surprised  that  any  gentleman 
should  have  in  his  library  so  many  copies  of  the  same  work. 
This  circumstance  excites  the  curiosity  of  the  antiquarian, 
and  he  attempts  to  ascertain  its  character.  Our  language 
has  undergone  so  many  changes  that  it  is  with  the  utmost 
difficulty  he  can  read  it ;  but  he  finally  succeeds.     It  is  en- 


82  MINISTERIAL    COMMISSION. 

titled  "  An  inquiry  into  the  ministerial  commission,  by  Rev. 
Lloyd  Windsor,  M.  A."  He  peruses  its  pages,  and  ascer- 
tains that  it  professes  to  be  an  argument  in  favor  of  dioce- 
san Episcopacy.  Being  an  Episcopalian  himself,  he  presses 
it  to  his  bosom  as  a  precious  relic  of  antiquity,  as  a  produc- 
tion of  one  of  the  ancient  fathers — going  to  show  that  dio- 
cesan bishops  are  the  true  successors  of  the  Apostles,  and 
that  the  Episcopal  church  is  the  only  true  church — its 
pages  being  full  of  bold  assertions  upon  these  points.  The 
work  is  handed  over  to  High  Church  Episcopal  divines,  and 
quoted  largely  to  support  their  exclusive  views  of  the  minis- 
try and  the  ordinances  of  the  church.  I  would  ask  those  of 
the  present  generation — those  who  hear  me  this  evening — 
what  would  all  this  prove  in  favor  of  jure  divino  Episcopa- 
cy ?  and  yet  it  would  be  just  as  conclusive  as  the  supposed 
quotation  from  Theodoret,  could  it  be  found  in  his  writings. 
The  truth  is,  my  hearers,  as  we  have  before  proved,  the 
Apostles,  as  such,  had  no  successors.  The  only  bishops 
which  the  New  Testament  knows  any  thing  about,  are  pres- 
byter bishops.  Christ  and  his  Apostles  never  made  a  dio- 
cesan bishop.  The  institution,  the  history,  or  the  denned 
rights  and  duties  of  such  a  bishop  cannot  be  found  upon  the 
sacred  page.  This  order  of  the  clergy  is  MAN-MADE  ; 
it  never  originated  by  divine  appointment. 

These  views  are  sustained  by  eminent  Episcopalians,  as 
will  be  shown  when  we  come  to  exhibit  the  testimony  of 
Episcopalians  in  our  favor.  We  will  here  cite  the  opinion  of 
two  eminent  Episcopal  divines.  Doct.  Willet  says  :  "  Seeing, 
in  the  Apostles'  times,  Episcopus  and  Presbyter — a  bishop 
and  a  priest — were  neither  in  name  nor  office  distinguished, 
it  followeth,  then,  that  either  the  Apostles  assigned  no  suc- 
cession while  they  lived,  neither  appointed  successors,  or  that, 
indifferently,  all  faithful  pastors  and  preachers  of  the  Apos- 
tolic faith  are  the  Apostles'  successors."  Dr.  Holland,  the 
king's  divinity  professor   at  Oxford,  at  a  public  academical 


MINISTERIAL    COMMISSION.  83 

exercise  was  asked,  "  Whether  the  office  of  Bishop  be  differ- 
ent from  that  of  Presbyter  and  superior  to  it  by  divine  right  t* 
To  which  he  replied :  "  To  affirm  that  there  is  such  a  differ- 
ence and  superiority  by  divine  right,  is  most  false  ;  contrary 
to  the  Scripture,  to  the  fathers,  to  the  doctrine  of  the  church 
of  England,  yea,  to  the  schoolmen  themselves." 

Lastly :  our  author  admits  that  there  is  but  one  ministe- 
rial commission  given  by  Christ,  and  that  that  commission 
was  given  to  but  one  order,  viz.,  "  the  Eleven."  Now,  it 
will  be  evident  to  any  one  who  will  give  it  a  candid  perusal, 
that  this  commission  grants  no  authority  to  constitute  three 
orders  in  the  ministry.  How  comes  it  to  pass,  then,  that, 
in  the  Episcopal  church,  under  one  ministerial  commission, 
given  to  one  order,  there  are  three  orders  of  clergy  ?  Our 
author  attempts  to  get  rid  of  this  difficulty  by  stating  that 
Presbyters  or  Elders  were  not  appointed  by  Christ  himself, 
but  by  the  Apostles ;  that  they  do  not  act  under  the  ministe- 
rial commission,  as  emanating  directly  from  Christ;  but 
that  they  are  commissioned  by  the  Apostles  and  their  suc- 
cessors— diocesan  Bishops.  His  idea  appears  to  be,  that 
Christ  appoints  and  commissions  the  bishops,  and  the  bish- 
ops appoint  and  commission  the  inferior  clergy.  Accord- 
ing to  our  author's  own  showing,  he,  as  a  presbyter,  does 
not  act  under  the  ministerial  commission,  as  emanating  from 
Christ ;  but  he  received  his  appointment  and  commission 
from  the  bishop  who  ordained  him.  If  this  be  the  state  of 
the  case,  we  do  not  envy  him  the  authority  under  which  he 
acts.  How  much  more  rational  and  scriptural  the  view, 
that  this  one  commission  created  but  one  order  of  ministers, 
viz.,  Presbyters;  which  order  has  been  perpetuated  and 
multiplied  in  the  church  until  the  present  day  ;  that  all  faith- 
ful pastors  act  under  the  ministerial  commission  as  it  came 
from  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  that  all  may  plead  that  pre- 
cious promise  which  it  contains, — "  Lo  !  I  am  with  you  al- 
ways, even  unto  the  end  of  the  world." 


84  MINISTERIAL    COMMISSION. 

But  perhaps  it  will  be  asked,  Did  not  the  Apostles  ordain 
Deacons  ?  And  are  they  not  an  inferior  order  of  clergy  ? 
That  the  Apostles  ordained  deacons,  is  perfectly  evident :  but 
thit  they  were  ordained  to  the  ministry  of  any  order,  we 
utterly  deny.  They  were  ordained,  not  to  preach,  in  the 
official  sense  of  that  term ;  but  to  superintend  the  temporal- 
ities of  the  church,  and  especially  to  the  distribution  of  alms 
among  the  poor  widows  and  other  indigent  members  who 
were  depending  upon  the  church's  charity  for  a  subsistence. 
They  were  appointed  to  "  serve  tables,"  that  the  Apostles 
might  give  themselves  more  entirely  to  preaching  the  word. 
T  iis  will  be  evident  to  any  unprejudiced  individual,  who 
will  take  pains  to  read  the  narrative  of  their  appointment. 
It  is  contained  in  Acts  vi.  1-6 :  "  And  in  those  days,  when 
the  number  of  the  disciples  was  multiplied,  there  arose  a  mur- 
muring of  the  Grecians  against  the  Hebrews,  because  their 
widows  were  neglected  in  the  daily  ministration.  Then  the 
twelve  called  the  multitude  of  the  disciples  unto  them,  and 
said,  It  is  not  reason  that  we  should  leave  the  word  of  God 
and  serve  tables.  Wherefore,  brethren,  look  ye  out  among 
you  seven  men  of  honest  report,  full  of  the  Holy  Ghost  and 
wisdom,  whom  we  may  appoint  over  this  business.  But  we 
will  give  ourselves  continually  to  prayer  and  to  the  ministry 
of  the  word.  And  the  saying  pleased  the  whole  multitude  : 
and  they  chose  Stephen,  a  man  full  of  faith  and  of  the  Holy 
Ghost,  and  Philip,  and  Prochorus,  and  Nicanor,  and  Timon, 
and  Parmenas,  and  Nicholas  a  proselyte  of  Antioch:  whom 
they  set  before  the  Apostles  :  and  when  they  had  prayed,  they 
laid  their  hands  on  them."  Here  certainly  there  is  nothing 
said  about  their  being  appointed  to  preach  or  exercise  any  of 
the  functions  of  a  gospel  minister.  The  circumstance  which 
led  to  their  appointment,  was,  the  murmuring  of  the  Gre- 
cians against  the  Hebrews,  because  the  widows  of  the  former 
were  neglected  in  the  daily  ministrations,  and  the  argument 
which  the  twelve  urge  for  their  appointment  is — "  It  is  not 


! 


MINISTERIAL    COMMISSION.  85 

reason  that  we  should  leave  the  word  of  God  and  serve 
tables."  They  were  appointed  to  attend  to  the  daily  minis- 
tration of  alms  among  the  poor  of  the  church,  that  the  Apos- 
tles might  give  themselves  continually  to  prayer  and  to  the 
ministry  of  the  word.  How  exactly  this  narrative  agrees 
with  the  situation  and  duties  of  Presbyterian  deacons  at  the 
present  time  !  But  perhaps  you  will  ask,  Did  not  Stephen 
exercise  the  functions  of  a  minister  ?  do  we  not  read  that  he 
preached  1  By  no  means.  Nowhere  is  this  recorded  of  him. 
It  is  said  that  when  his  views  of  Christianity  were  attack- 
ed, he  disputed  with  his  opponents ;  and  that  when  he 
was  brought  before  the  council  for  trial  he  defended  himself 
mightily ;  but  these  things  he  had  a  perfect  right  to  do  with- 
out being  an  ordained  minister.  Again,  you  may  ask, 
Did  not  Philip  preach  and  baptize?  Certainly  he  did;  but 
not  until  he  had  been  ordained  an  evangelist.  Hence  he  is 
expressly  called  an  evangelist  in  Acts  xxi.  8  :  "  And  the  next 
day,  we  that  were  of  Paul's  company  departed,  and  came  unto 
Cesarea.  And  we  entered  into  the  house  of  Philip  the 
Evangelist,  which  was  one  of  the  seven,  and   abode  with 

i  him."  Here  Philip  is  expressly  called  an  Evangelist;  and 
lest  he  should  bethought  to  be  some  other  Philip,  it  is  stated 
that  he  was  one  of  the  seven  who  were  elected  deacons  of 
the  church  at  Jerusalem.  "  The  truth  is,"  says  Dr.  Miller, 
"  Philip,  a  short  time  after  being  set  apart  a  deacon,  was 
driven  from  Jerusalem  by  persecution  ;  and  being  no  longer 

-able  to  fulfil  the  duties  of  this  office,  it  is  probable  that  some 
person  in  that  city  was  chosen  his  successor,  and  that  he  was 
advanced  to  the  higher  office  of  Evangelist,  and  sent  abroad 
to  preach  the  gospel."  Upon  the  subject  of  the  deaconship, 
Bishop  Croft,  in  his  "  Naked  Truth,"  holds  the  following 
language  :  "  Having  thus  stated  and  united  the  two  pre- 
tended and  distinct  orders  of  Episcopacy  and  Presbytery,  I 
now  proceed  to  the  third  pretended  spiritual  order ;  that  of 

4* 


8G  MINISTERIAL    COMMISSION. 

the  Deaconship.  Whether  this  of  deaconship  be  properly 
called  an  order  or  an  office,  I  will  not  dispute,  but  certainly 
no  spiritual  order ;  for  their  office  was  to  serve  tables,  as  the 
Scripture  phrases  it,  which,  in  plain  English,  is  nothing  else 
but  overseers  of  the  poor,  to  distribute  justly  and  discreetly 
the  alms  of  the  faithful,  which  the  Apostles  would  not  trouble 
themselves  withal,  lest  it  should  hinder  them  in  the  adminis- 
tration of  the  word  and  prayer.  But,  as  most  matters  of  this 
world  in  process  of  time  deflect  much  from  the  original  con- 
stitution, so  it  fell  out  in  this  business;  for  the  bishops,  who 
pretended  to  be  the  successors  of  the  Apostles,  by  little  and 
little  took  to  themselves  the  dispensation  of  alms,  first  by  way 
of  inspection  over  the  deacons;  but  at  length  the  total  man- 
agement. And  the  deacons,  who  were  mere  lay  officers,  by 
degrees  crept  into  the  church  ministration,  and  became 
reputed  spiritual  order,  and  a  necessary  degree  and  step  to 
the  priesthood,  of  which  I  can  find  nothing  in  Scripture  and 
the  original  institution  ;  not  a  word  relating  to  any  thing  but 
the  ordering  of  alms  for  the  poor.  And  the  first  I  find  of 
their  officiating  in  spiritual  matters,  is  in  Justin  Martyr's 
time,  who  lived  in  the  second  century."  Here  you  have  the 
ample  testimony  of  an  Episcopal  Bishop  upon  the  subject  of 
the  deaconship.  Bishop  White,  of  Pennsylvania,  writing 
to  Bishop  Hobart  upon  the  same  subject,  thus  delivers  his 
opinion  :  "  But  can  it  be  imagined  that  an  order  instituted 
for  the  purpose  of  '  serving  tables,'  should,  in  the  very  in- 
fancy of  its  existence,  have  the  office  of  the  higher  order 
of  the  ministry  committed  to  them  ?  I  do  not  deny  either  the 
right  or  the  prudence  of  allowing  what  has  been  subsequently 
allowed  to  this  lowest  order  of  the  clergy.  All  I  contend 
for  is,  that  at  the  first  institution  of  the  order  there  could 
have  been  no  difference  between  them  and  laymen  in  regard 
to  the  preaching  of  the  word  and  the  administering  the  sa- 
craments."   This  is  the  same  Bishop  WThite  who,  our  author 


MINISTERIAL    COMMISSION.  87 

contends,  believes  in  the  divine  right  of  Episcopacy.  The 
testimony  of  this  bishop  may  give  him  considerable  trouble 
before  these  discourses  are  finished. 

Here,  then,  we  close  our  Bible  argument.  And  who 
does  not  perceive  that  there  are  found  in  the  Bible  but  three 
ordinary  and  permanent  classes  of  church  officers? 

1.  Presbyter  Bishops  or  the  pastors  of  the  churches,  who 
act  under  the  ministerial  commission  and  claim  the  precious 
promises  which  it  contains :  "  Lo,  I  am  with  you  always, 
even  unto  the  end  of  the  world." 

2.  A  bench  of  ruling  Elders,  whose  business  it  is  to  gov- 
ern, and  not  to  preach. 

3.  Deacons,  who  are  to  oversee  the  temporalities  of  the 
church,  and  distribute  her  alms  to  her  indigent  members. 
And  we  are  willing  to  leave  it  to  the  decision  of  any  candid 
hearer,  whether  here  are  not  found  all  the  essential  features 
of  Presbyterianism.  We  do  not  believe  in  the  divine 
right  of  any  form  of  church  government ;  but  we  are  firmly 
persuaded  that  the  form  adopted  by  our  particular  branch  of 
the  churchy  comes  nearer  to  the  Apostolic  model  than  any 
other  extant.  This,  it  is  believed,  has  been  made  abundantly 
evident  in  the  foregoing  lecture. 


LECTURE    V. 


TESTIMONY  OF  THE  FATHERS. 

Matt.  xv.  9. — u  But  in  vain  do  they  worship  me,  teaching  for 
doctrine  the  commandments  of  men." 

Men  are  ever  prone  to  give  an  authority  to  the  ancient 
expounders  of  divine  law,  which  they  ought  never  to  possess. 
And  especially  is  this  the  case  when  an  importance  is  at- 
tached to  forms  and  ceremonies,  and  the  externals  of  reli- 
gion, which  cannot  be  sustained  by  a  direct  appeal  to  Scrip- 
ture. Hence  recourse  is  had  to  the  writings  of  the  ancients. 
This  is  the  course  taken  by  High  Church  Episcopalians. 
Failing  entirely  to  sustain  their  system  of  exclusive  doctrines 
by  the  Scriptures,  they  appeal  with  seeming  confidence  and 
triumph  to  the  Fathers,  or  early -Christi an  writers.  In  regard 
to  this  appeal  we  would  remark  : 

1.  Were  the  fathers  ever  so  much  in  favor  of  diocesan 
Episcopacy,  it  would  argue  nothing  against  us,  so  long  as 
we  cannot  find  it  in  the  Bible.  We  do  not  profess  to  take 
the  very  uncertain  writings  of  the  Fathers  as  any  part  of  our 
rule  of  faith  and  practice.  According  to  our  belief,  the  Old 
and  New  Testaments  are  the  "  only  unerring  rule."  If, 
therefore,  the  Fathers  decide  against  the  Scriptures,  we  are 
bound  to  decide  against  them.  We  use  the  same  language 
in  regard  to  the  authority  of  the  Fathers,  which  the  venerable 
Augustine  used  in  regard  to  the  authority  of  Cyprian  : 
"  His  writings  I  hold  not  to  be  canonical,  but  examine  them 


TESTIMONY    OF    THE    FATHERS.  89 

by  the  canonical  writings  :  and  in  them  what  agreeth  with 
the  authority  of  Divine  Scripture,  I  accept  with  his  praise. 
What  agreeth  not,  I  reject  with  his  leave."  This  is  pre- 
cisely the  course  we  must  take  with  all  the  writings  of  the 
Fathers ;  they  must  be  tried  by  the  Scripture,  instead  of 
the  Scriptures  being  tried  by  them. 

2.  In  an  appeal  to  the  Fathers,  it  should  be  recollected 
that  Episcopacy  took  its  rise  in  the  church  in  the  third  cen- 
tury ;  and  this  fact,  while  it  detracts  materially  from  the 
weight  of  testimony  brought  after  that  period,  in  favor  of 
Episcopacy,  adds  greatly  to  the  weight  of  testimony  adduced 
against  it — upon  the  well-known  legal  and  common-sense 
principle,  that  the  testimony  of  an  individual  in  his  favor  is 
considered  of  little  value  ;  but  his  evidence  against  himself, 
is  held  to  be  the  most  convincing  kind  of  testimony. 

3.  We  do  not  shrink  from  an  appeal  to  the  Fathers  : 
and,  were  it  proper,  we  should  be  perfectly  willing  to  leave 
it  to  them,  as  arbitrators  in  the  matters  of  difference  between 
high  churchmen  and  ourselves  ;  we  should  not  be  the  least 
fearful  of  their  rendering  a  verdict  against  us. 

But  we  will  examine  somewhat  at  length  the  testimony 
of  the  Fathers,  and  see  what  they  say  upon  the  subject. 
We  will  divide  this  testimony  into  two  periods  of  time  ;  the 
first  running  to  the  middle  of  the  third  century,  or  the 
period  before  which  Episcopacy  had  made  any  very  marked 
progress  in  the  church  ;  the  second,  after  that  time — for  we 
believe  it  is  admitted  by  all,  that  Episcopacy  became  some- 
what rife  in  the  church  during  the  last  half  of  the  third 
century. 

The  earliest  witness  who  lived  and  wrote  during  the  first 
two  hundred  and  fifty  years  of  the  Christian  era,  is  Clemens 
Romanus.  This  is  the  first  witness  presented  by  our  author 
in  favor  of  Diocesan  Episcopacy.  He  says  of  him,  "  A.  D. 
(54-70,  Clement,  first  Bishop  of  Rome,  mentioned  by  St. 
Paul  in  Philip,  iv.  3."  That  the  person  here  spoken  of,  and 


90  TESTIMONY    OP    THE    FATHERS. 

Clement  of  Rome,  are  the  same,  is  affirmed  by  Eusebius 
Epiphanius,  and  St.  Hierone.  In  his  first  epistle  to  the 
Corinthians  now  extant,  Clement  thus  writes  :  "  So  likewise 
our  Apostles  knew  by  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  that  there 
should  arise  contentions  on  account  of  the  ministry,  and 
therefore,  having  a  perfect  knowledge  of  this,  they  (the 
Apostles)  appointed  persons,  as  we  have  before  said,  and 
gave  directions  how,  when  they  should  die,  other  chosen  and 
approved  men  should  succeed  in  their  ministry."  "  We 
have  here" — continues  our  author — "  the  testimony  of  one 
who  was  the  personal  companion  of  St.  Paul,  affirming  that 
the  succession  of  the  Bishops  was  commanded  by  the  Apos- 
tles." If  this  is  the  strongest  passage  our  author  can  find 
in  Clement,  his  case  must  be  a  desperate  one,  so  far  as  this 
Father  is  concerned ;  for  he  does  not  even  mention  the  term 
Bishop  at  all ;  he  merely  says,  that  to  prevent  all  disputes 
about  the  ministry,  the  Apostles  appointed  ministers  in  the 
churches,  and  gave  directions  how,  when  they  should  die, 
successors  should  be  appointed  to  their  ministry.  Now  we 
would  ask,  Who,  among  all  the  non-Episcopal  ranks,  disputes 
this  fact  ?  Not  one  that  we  ever  heard  of  in  any  age  or 
country.  And  yet,  this  is  introduced  with  wonderful  cere- 
mony, as  though  it  went  to  prove  that  the  Apostles  establish- 
ed an  order  of  diocesan  Bishops  in  the  church  of  God  !  But, 
although  our  author  is  satisfied  with  so  short  a  quotation 
from  Clement,  it  is  by  no  means  all  that  that  Father  has 
written  upon  the  subject.  Other  extracts  will  throw  light 
upon  the  one  quoted  by  our  author.  In  this  same  epistle  of 
Clement  to  the  Corinthians,  he  says  :  "  The  Apostles,  going 
abroad  preaching  through  countries  and  cities,  appointed 
the  first  fruits  of  their  ministry  to  be  Bishops  and  Deacons : 
nor  was  this  any  thing  new,  seeing,  long  before,  it  was  writ- 
ten concerning  bishops  and  deacons,  '  For  thus  saith  the 
Scripture  in  a  certain  place,  I  will  appoint  their  bishops 
in  righteousness,  and  their  deacons  in  faith.'  "  Here  you  per- 


TESTIMONY    OF    THE    FATHERS.  91 

ceive  Clement  speaks  after  the  manner  of  St.  Paul  of  bishops 
and  deacons,  as  the  only  distinct  offices  in  the  church ;  he 
does  not  here,  he  nowhere  speaks  of  presbyters  and  bishops 
as  being  different  orders  of  the  ministry.  This  would  have 
appeared  most  evident,  if  our  author  had  continued  his  own 
quotation  a  little  further  on  ;  but,  as  he  has  not  seen  fit  to  do 
it,  we  will  do  it  for  him.  Clement  says  :  "  The  Apostles  knew 
by  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  that  contentions  would  arise  about 
the  name  of  Episcopacy  ;  and  therefore,  having  a  perfect 
knowledge  of  this,  they  appointed  persons,  as  we  have  before 
said,  and  gave  directions  how,  when  they  should  die,  other 
chosen  and  approved  men  should  succeed  in  their  ministry. 
Wherefore  we  cannot  think  that  those  may  be  justly  thrown 
out  of  their  ministry,  who  were  either  appointed  by  them,  or 
afterwards  chosen  by  other  eminent  men  with  the  consent  of 
the  whole  church.  For  it  would  be  no  small  sin  in  us,  should 
we  cast  off  those  from  their  Episcopate,  (i.  e.  Bishoprick,) 
who  nobly  and  without  blame  fulfil  the  duties  of  it.  Blessed 
are  those  Presbyters  who,  having  finished  their  course  before 
these  times,  obtained  a  perfect  and  fruitful  dissolution.  For 
they  have  no  fear  lest  any  one  should  turn  them  out  of  the 
place  which  is  now  appointed  for  them."  Again  :  "  It  is  a 
shame,  my  beloved,  yea,  a  very  great  shame,  and  unworthy 
of  your  Christian  profession,  to  hear  that  the  most  firm  and 
ancient  church  of  the  Corinthians  should,  by  one  or  two 
persons,  be  led  into  a  sedition  against  its  Presbyters.  Only 
let  the  flock  of  Christ  be  at  peace  with  the  presbyters  which 
are  set  over  it.  He  that  shall  do  this,  shall  get  to  himself 
very  great  honor  in  the  Lord.  Do  ye,  therefore,  who  first  laid 
the  foundation  of  this  sedition,  submit  yourselves  to  your 
presbyters,  and  be  instructed  into  repentance,  bending  the 
knee  of  your  hearts."  It  is  evident  from  these  quotations, 

1.  That  this  epistle  originated  in  the  fact  that  a  sedition 
had  arisen  in  the  Corinthian  church  against  their  bishops  or 


92  TESTIMONY    OF    THE    FATHERS. 

presbyters,  and  that  the  object  of  Clement,  in  this  epistle, 
was  to  quell  this  sedition. 

2.  Clement  makes  no  distinction  between  the  terms 
Bishop  and  Presbyter  :  he  applies  them  both  to  the  same 
class  of  individuals.     It  therefore  follows, 

3.  That  whatever  he  says  about  the  succession  of 
Bishops,  he  says  also  about  the  succession  of  Presbyters. 
With  him,  they  are  not  two  distinct  orders,  but  the  same 
order  in  the  ministry.  So  much  for  the  testimony  of  Cle- 
ment. Instead  of  favoring  our  author's  positions,  it  is 
altogether  against  them. 

The  next  Father  whom  we  shall  introduce,  is  the  vene- 
rable Polycarp.  He  is  represented  to  have  been  a  disciple 
of  the  Apostle  John,  and  to  have  suffered  martyrdom  for 
the  faith  as  it  is  in  Jesus.  His  epistle  to  the  Philippians 
was  written  early  in  the  second  century.  In  it  we  find  the 
following  statements  :  "  It  behooves  you  to  abstain  from 
these  things,  being  subject  to  the  Presbyters  and  Deacons 
as  to  God  and  Christ."  Again  ;  "  Let  the  Presbyters  be 
compassionate  and  merciful  towards  all,  turning  them  from 
their  errors ;  searching  out  those  that  are  weak  ;  not  for- 
getting the  widows,  the  fatherless,  and  the  poor  ;  abstaining 
from  all  wrath,  respect  of  persons  and  unrighteous  judg- 
ment ;  not  easy  to  believe  any  thing  against  any,  nor  severe 
in  judgment ;  knowing  that  we  are  all  debtors  in  point  of 
law."  This  Father  does  not,  in  his  whole  epistle,  mention 
the  word  Bishop,  and  the  whole  tenor  of  his  epistle  goes  to 
show  that,  in  the  Philippian  church,  there  were  only  two 
classes  of  officers,  viz.,  Presbyters  and  Deacons. 

The  next  Father  is  Ignatius.  Concerning  this  Father 
our  author  says  :  "  A.  D.  67,  Ignatius,  the  disciple  of  St. 
John ;  for  forty  years  the  bishop  of  Antioch.  He  suffered 
martyrdom  under  Trajan  at  Rome  ;  whither  he  was  sent  for 
that  purpose,    about   the   year  of  our  Lord  107.     In  his 


TESTIMONY    OF    THE    FATHERS.  93 

epistle  to  the  church  of  Philadelphia  in  Asia,  he  writes  : 
1  Which  also  I  salute  in  the  blood  of  Jesus  Christ,  which  is 
our  eternal  and  undefiled  joy,  especially  if  they  are  at  unity 
with  the  Bishop  and  Presbyters  who  are  with  him  and  the 
Deacons,  appointed  according  to  the  mind  of  Jesus  Christ ; 
whom  he  has  settled  according  to  his  own  will,  with  all 
firmness  by  his  Holy  Spirit.' Which  Bishop  T  know  ob- 
tained that  great  ministry  among  you,  not  of  himself,  neither 
by  men,  nor  out  of  vainglory,  but  by  the  love  of  God  the 
Father,  and  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ.  Be  not  deceived, 
brethren  :  If  any  one  follow  him  that  makes  a  schism  in 
the  church,  he  shall  not  inherit  the  kingdom  of  God.  If 
any  one  walk  after  any  other  opinion,  he  agrees  not  with 
the  passion  of  Christ.  Wherefore  let  it  be  your  endeavor 
to  partake  all  of  the  same  holy  Eucharist  (Lord's  Supper). 
For  there  is  but  one  flesh  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and 
one  cup  in  the  unity  of  his  blood,  one  altar,  as  also  there  is 
one  Bishop  together  with  his  presbytery,  and  the  Deacons 
my  fellow-servants ;  that  so,  whatever  ye  do,  ye  may  do  it 
according  to  the  will  of  God."  To  confute  our  author,  we 
need  no  other  quotation  from  Ignatius  than  the  one  which  he 
has  himself  here  introduced.  It  is  true  that  Ignatius  in  this 
extract  speaks  of  the  bishop,  presbyters,  and  deacons  of  the 
church  at  Philadelphia  ;  but  he  speaks  of  them  just  as  we, 
Presbyterians,  would  speak  of  the  pastor,  elders  and  deacons 
of  any  particular  church.  This  epistle  was  addressed,  not  to 
a  plurality  of  churches,  such  as  exist  in  a  diocese,  but  to  the 
single  individual  church  organization  at  Philadelphia,  which 
is  evident  from  the  two  following  facts : 

1.  The  presbyters  and   deacons  were  with  the  bishop: 
that  is,  they  were  administering  together  with  him,  in  the 

^same  church.     Ignatius  says  expressly,  "  Especially  if  they 
Mkare  at  unity  with   the   bishop  and  presbyters  who  are   ivith 
him,  and  the  deacons,"  &,c. 

2.  This  church,  according  to  Ignatius,  had  but  one  altar 


94 


TESTIMONY    OF    THE    FATHERS. 


as  well  as  one  bishop,  which  shows  conclusively  that  it  was 
an  individual  church,  having  its  bishop  or  pastor,  and  bench 
of  elders,  [which  bench  of  presbyters — in  a  church  so  large 
that  its  bishop  required  aids  in  the  work  of  preaching  the 
gospel — was  divided  into  preaching  and  ruling  presbyters,] 
and  deacons;  having  but  one  altar,  at  which  the  holy 
eucharist  was  administered  by  the  bishop  or  pastor  to 
the  assembled  church,  and  not  a  diocese,  consisting  of 
a  plurality  of  churches.  It  is  a  notorious  fact,  that  every 
church  in  a  diocese  has  its  own  altar,  and  that  all  the  churches 
in  a  diocese  never  congregate  at  one  altar.  This  extract 
then  goes  very  far  to  sustain  Presbyterianism  ;  it  proves 
nothing  in  favor  of  diocesan  Episcopacy.  If  our  author  had 
attended  to  the  evident  meaning  of  Ignatius,  instead  of  being 
captivated  by  the  mere  sound  of  the  word  when  he  mentions 
the  bishop  or  pastor  in  distinction  from  those  whom  he  calls 
"  his  presbytery/'  who  were  his  aids  in  preaching  and  ruling 
in  the  same  church,  he  never  would  have  cited  this  passage 
as  evidence  in  his  favor. 

Concerning  the  testimony  of  Ignatius,  we  have  two  or 
three  general  remarks  to  make. 

1.  Great  doubts  are  entertained  by  the  learned  of  the 
genuineness  of  any  of  the  epistles  attributed  to  him.  There 
are  two  collections  of  epistles,  one  is  called  his  large,  and 
the  other  his  smaller  epistles.  Concerning  the  first  it  is 
universally  agreed  that  they  are  spurious;  and  as  to  the  last, 
it  is  very  generally  admitted  that  they  abound  with  interpo- 
lations by  subsequent  writers.  Dr.  Campbell  has  a  very  able 
and  convincing  argument  to  prove  that  the  whole  of  these 
epistles  are  forgeries.  Their  style  and  language  belong  to 
the  fifth  century,  rather  than  the  first  or  second. 

2.  Whatever  is  said  in  these  epistles  about  bishops,  it 
cannot  be  proved  to  have  been  said  of  diocesan  bishops,  bu 
only  of  parochial  bishops  or  presbyters. 

3.  Whatever  authority  they  may  ascribe  to  bishops,  they 


TESTIMONY   OP   THE    FATHERS.  95 

make  presbyters  the  successors  of  the  Apostles.  This  is  all 
we  need  in  the  present  discussion.  They  use  the  following 
very  explicit  language  :  "  The  Presbyters  preside  in  the 
place  of  the  council  of  the  Apostles."  "  Be  ye  sub- 
ject to  your  Presbyters,  as  to  the  Apostles  of  Jesus  Christ 
our  hope."  "  Let  all  reverence  the  Presbyters  as  the 
SANHEDRIM  OF  GOD  AND  THE  COLLEGE  OF 
APOSTLES."  "  See  that  ye  follow  the  Presbyters  as  the 
Apostles"     If  high  churchmen  could  find  in  Ignatius  such 

•  language  as  this  in  regard  to  bishops,  with  what  an  air  of 
triumph  they  would  quote  it  as  conclusive  evidence  that 
diocesan  bishops  are  the  true  successors  of  the  Apostles. 
But,  alas !  they  cannot  press  into  their  service  these  spurious 
epistles,  and  make  them  testify  in  favor  of  diocesan  Episco- 
pacy. The  learned  (Episcopal)  Dr.  Stillingfleet  remarks, 
concerning  the  testimony  of  these  epistles ;  "  In  all  those 
thirty-five  testimonies  produced  out  of  Ignatius's  epistles,  for 
Episcopacy,  I  can  meet  with  but  one  which  is  brought  to 
prove  the  least  semblance  of  an  institution  of  Christ  for 
Episcopacy,  and  if  I  be  not  much  deceived,  the  sense  of  that 
place  is  clearly  mistaken  too." 

The  next  Father  mentioned  by  our  author  is  Irenaeus. 
He  introduces  his  testimony  in  the  following  manner : 
"A.  D.  170,  Irenaeus,  bishop  of  Lyons,  and  disciple  of  Poly- 
carp,  writes — (Lib.  III.  chap.  3) — "We  can  reckon  those 
bishops  who  have  been  constituted  by  the  Apostles  and  their 
successors  all  the  way  to  our  times.  We  have  the  succession 
of  the  bishops  to  whom  the  Apostolic  church  in  every  place 
was  committed."  "  The  reader  will  observe,"  continues  our 
author,  "  how  entirely  this  statement  agrees  with  that  made 
by  Clement,  that  the  Apostles  committed  the  churches  in 
different  places  to  faithful  men  as  their  successors."     We 

%  would  ask  our  author  what  writer  in  non-Episcopal  ranks 
ever  denied  that  the  Apostles  committed  the  churches  in 
different  places  to  faithful  men,  as  their  successors?     To 


96  TESTIMONY    OF    THE    FATHERS. 

attempt  to  prove  this  is  labor  lost;  for  it  is  admitted  on  all 
hands.  But  the  question  in  dispute  is,  whether  these  suc- 
cessors were  diocesan  bishops,  or  presbyter  bishops  ?  And 
whether  they  succeeded  to  the  apostleship  or  the  presbyter- 
ate  ?  We  are  entirely  willing  to  submit  the  question  to  Ire- 
naeus  for  a  decision.  If  our  author  knows  any  thing  about 
the  writings  of  this  Father  beyond  the  quotation  he  has  made, 
he  must,  know  he  uses  the  titles  bishop  and  presbyter  as  in- 
terchangeable terms,  applicable  to  the  same  individuals,  and 
designating  the  same  office.  This  will  be  evident  from  the 
following  quotations :  "  When  we  challenge  them  (the  here- 
tics) to  that  Apostolical  tradition  which  is  preserved  in  the 
church,  through  the  succession  of  the  presbyters,  they  oppose 
the  tradition,  pretending  that  they  are  wiser  not  only  than 
the  presbyters,  but  also  than  the  Apostles." — Book  against 
Heresies,  Lib.  III.  chap.  2.  "  The  Apostolic  tradition  is 
present  in  every  church.  We  can  enumerate  those  who  were 
constituted  bishops  by  the  Apostles  in  the  churches,  and 
their  successors  even  to  us,  who  taught  no  such  things.  By 
showing  the  tradition  and  declared  faith  of  the  greatest  and 
most  ancient  church  of  Rome,  which  she  received  from  the 
Apostles,  and  which  has  come  to  us  through  the  succession 
of  the  bishops,  we  confound  all  who  conclude  otherwise  than 
they  ought." — Lib.  III.  chap.  3.  "  Obey  those  presbyters  in 
the  church,  who  have  the  succession,  as  we  have  shown,  from 
the  Apostles ;  who.  with  the  succession  of  the  Episcopate,  re- 
ceived the  gift  of  truth  according  to  the  good  pleasure  of  the 
Father." — Lib.  IV.  chap.  43.  "  We  ought  therefore  to  ad- 
here to  those  presbyters  who  keep  the  Apostles'  doctrine, 
and,  together  with  the  presbyterial  succession,  do  show  forth 
sound  speech.  Such  presbyters  the  church  nourishes  :  and 
of  such  the  prophet  says,  '  I  will  give  them  princes  in  peace, 
and  bishops  in  righteousness.'  " — Lib.  IV.  chap.  44.  "  True" 
knowledge  is  the  doctrine  of  the  Apostles  according  to  the 
succession  of  Bishops,  to  whom  they  delivered  the  church  in 


TESTIMONY    OF    THE    FATHERS.  97 

every  place;  which  doctrine  hath  reached  us,  preserved  in 
its  most  full  delivery." — Lib.  IV.  chap.  53.  From  these  quo- 
tations it  is  perfectly  clear,  that  Irenaeus  speaks  of  the  same 
succession  as  coming  down  in  the  line  of  bishops  and  pres- 
byters, that  he  applies  these  terms  to  the  same  individuals, 
and  uses  them  to  designate  precisely  the  same  office. 

If  doubts  should  still  remain  upon  any  mind  in  reference 
to  this  point,  the  following  quotations  cannot  fail  entirely  to 
dispel  them.  In  Lib.  III.  chap  3,  of  his  book  against  Here- 
sies, Irenaeus  calls  Polycarp  "  Bishop"  of  the  church  of 
Smyrna.  His  language  is  :  "  Polycarp  also,  who  was  not 
only  taught  by  the  Apostles,  and  conversed  with  many  of 
those  who  had  seen  our  Lord,  but  was  also  appointed  by  the 
Apostles  Bishop  of  the  church  of  Smyrna  in  Asia,"  SoC  In 
his  epistle  to  Florinus,  Irenaeus  calls  this  same  Polycarp  a 
"  Presbyter"  His  words  are,  "I  am  able  to  testify  before 
God,  that  if  that  holy  and  Apostolical  Presbyter  (Polycarp) 
had  heard  any  such  thing,  he  would  have  at  once  exclaimed, 
as  his  manner  was,  '  Good  God  !  into  what  times  hast  thou 
reserved  me  !'  "  Thus  you  perceive,  that  this  Father  at  one 
time  calls  Polycarp  a  Bishop;  and,  at  another,  a  Presbyter ; 
showing  conclusively  that  he  used  these  titles  to  designate 
the  same  office.  Again,  what  will  our  author  say  to  the  fol- 
owing  quotation  from  Irenaeus  :  "  The  Apostles,  founding 
and  instructing  that  church,  (the  church  of  Rome,)  delivered 
to  Linus  the  Episcopate  ;  Anacletus  succeeded  him  ;  after 
him,  Clement  obtained  the  Episcopate  from  the  Apostles  ; 
to  Clement  succeeded  Evaristus  ;  to  him.  Alexander ;  then, 
Sixtus  ;  and  after  him,  Telesphorus  ;  then,  Hygynus  ;  after 
him,  Pius ;  then,  Anicetus ;  and  when  Soter  had  succeeded 
Anicetus,  then  Eleutherius  had  the  Episcopate,  in  the  twelfth 
place.  By  this  appointment  and  instruction,  that  tradition 
in  the  church  and  publication  of  the  truth  which  is  from  the 
Apostles,  came  to  us." — Lib,  III.  c.  3,  against  Heresies. 
In  his  letter  to  Victor,  then  Bishop  of  Rome,  in  reference  to 


98  TESTIMONY    OF    THE    FATHERS. 

the  day  upon  which  Easter  should  be  celebrated,  he  says  : 
"  Those  Presbyters  before  Soter,  who  governed  the  church 
which  thou,  Victor,  now  governest — I  mean  Anicetus,  Pius, 
Hygynus,  Telesphorus,  and  Sixtus — they  did  not  observe 
it ;  and  those  Presbyters  who  preceded  you,  though  they 
did  not  observe  it  themselves,  yet  sent  the  Eucharist  to  those 
of  other  churches  who  did  observe  it.  And  when  blessed 
Polycarp  in  the  days  of  Anicetus  came  to  Rome,  he  did 
not  much  persuade  Anicetus  to  observe  it,  as  he  (Anicetus) 
declared  that  the  custom  of  the  presbyters  who  were  his 
predecessors  should  be  retained."  Now,  if  we  turn  to  the 
succession  of  bishops,  given  by  our  author  in  the  Appendix 
to  his  work  upon  the  ministerial  commission,  we  find  the 
names  of  Soter,  Anicetus,  Pius,  Hygynus,  Telesphorus,  and 
Sixtus  ?  But  all  these  are  called  by  Irenseus,  Presbyters  ; 
and  that  too  after  our  author  declares  they  had  received 
"  the  Episcopate"  in  the  church  at  Rome.  Here,  then,  is 
evidence  incontrovertible  that  Irenseus  used  the  titles  Bishop 
and  Presbyter  as  convertible  terms,  applicable  to  the  same 
individuals  and  office.  The  Bishops  of  Irenceus  were  the 
Bishops  of  Scripture,  viz.,  Presbyter-Bishops. 

The  next  Father  we  shall  mention  is  Tertuliian.  Of 
him  our  author  says  :  "  A.  D.  200,  Tertuliian,  a  Presbyter  of 
Carthage,  writes :  '  Let  them  produce  the  originals  of  their 
church,  and  show  the  order  of  their  Bishops,  so  running 
down  successively  from  the  beginning  as  that  every  first 
bishop  among  them  shall  have  had  for  his  author  and  prede- 
cessor, some  one  of  the  Apostles,  or  Apostolic  men,  who 
continued  with  the  Apostles.  For,  in  this  manner,  the 
Apostolic  churches  bring  down  their  registers,  as  the  church 
of  Smyrna  from  Polycarp,  placed  there  by  John  ;  the  church 
of  Rome  from  Clement,  ordained  by  Peter  ;  and  so  do  the 
rest  prove  their  Apostolic  origin  by  exhibiting  those  who 
were  constituted  their  bishops  by  the  Apostles.'  "  Here, 
again,  we  would  ask,  Who  has  denied  that  the  Apostles  con- 


TESTIMONY    OF    THE    FATHERS.  99 

stituted  bishops  in  the  churches  ?  Yet,  this  is  all  the  testi- 
mony of  Tertullian  proves.  Certainly  it  does  not  prove  that 
they  were  diocesan  bishops.  It  is  true,  Tertullian  speaks  of 
bishops  as  if  they  were  the  chief  priests,  or  presbyters 
among  the  other  presbyters,  who  were  to  preside  in  their 
councils  and  take  the  pastoral  oversight  of  the  churches, 
aided  by  the  other  presbyters  and  deacons  ;  but  never  in 
such  a  manner  as  to  lead  the  candid  mind  to  suspect  that 
they  were  diocesan  bishops  ;  for,  most  evidently,  every  sepa- 
rate church  had  its  bishop.  Tertullian,  in  his  writings, 
contends  most  earnestly  against  the  heretics  of  his  time,  and 
one  way  which  he  takes  to  prove  them  heretics  is,  to  show 
that  they  have  not  the  succession  of  faith,  which  had  been 
handed  down  from  the  Apostles  through  the  bishops  or  pas- 
tors of  the  several  churches,  who  had  been  appointed  by 
them.  It  is  the  succession  of  faith  which  he  deems  so  vastly 
important ;  and  he  only  mentions  a  succession  of  persons 
as  a  means  to  substantiate  the  succession  of  faith.  This 
would  have  appeared  from  the  quotation  of  our  author,  if  he 
had  taken  in  the  whole  paragraph.  It  is  as  follows  :  "  But 
if  any  of  the  heretics  dare  to  connect  themselves  with  the 
Apostolic  age,  that  they  may  seem  to  be  derived  from  the 
Apostles  as  existing  under  them,  we  may  say,  let  them 
therefore  declare  the  .origin  of  their  churches.  Let  them 
exhibit  the  series  of  their  bishops,  so  coming  down  by  a  con- 
tinued succession  from  the  beginning,  as  to  show  their  first 
bishop  to  have  had  some  Apostle,  or  Apostolical  man,  for 
his  predecessor  or  ordainer,  and  who  continued  in  the 
same  faith  with  the  Apostles,"  &c.  Our  author,  in  order 
to  carry  the  idea  that  Tertullian  here  refers  merely  to  a  dry 
personal  succession  from  the  Apostles,  omits  entirely  the 
first  clause,  in  which  allusion  is  made  to  the  heretics  ;  and 
not  only  so,  but  he  also  leaves  out  of  the  very  midst  of  what 
he  has  quoted,  the  words — "  in  the  same  faith,"  and 
connects  "  continued"  to  "  with  ;"  making  the  sentence  to 


100  TESTIMONY    OF    THE    FATHERS. 

read — "  who  continued  with  the  Apostles" — instead  of,  as  it 
is  in  the  original,  "  who  continued  in  the  same  faith  with 
the  Apostles."  So  opposed  are  high  churchmen  to  faith 
having  any  thing  to  do  with  their  true  Apostolic  succession. 
But  the  views  of  Tertullian  upon  this  subject  will  appear 
more  evident  from  the  following  quotation  :"  But  if  the  here- 
tics feign  to  fabricate  such  a  succession,  this  will  not  help 
them.  For  their  doctrine  itself,  compared  with  the  doctrine 
of  the  Apostles,  will,  by  its  own  diversity  and  contrariety, 
pronounce  against  them,  that  it  had  not,  as  its  author,  either 
any  Apostle  or  Apostolic  men  ;  for,  as  there  was  no  differ- 
ence among  the  Apostles  in  their  doctrine,  so  neither  did 
any  Apostolical  men  teach  any  thing  contrary  to  them,  ex- 
cept those  who  divided  from  the  Apostles,  and  preached  dif- 
ferently. To  this  form  of  trial  will  appeal  be  made  by  those 
churches  henceforward  daily  established ;  which,  though 
they  have  neither  any  of  the  Apostles  nor  any  Apostolical 
men  for  their  founders,  yet  all  agreeing  in  the  same  faith, 
and  from  this  consanguinity  of  doctrine  to  be  esteemed 
not  less  Apostolical  than  the  former.  Therefore,  our 
churches  having  appealed  to  both  forms  of  proving  them- 
selves Apostolical,  let  the  heretics  show  some  form  by  which 
they  can  prove  the  same.  But  they  cannot  show  this,  for  it 
does  not  exist ;  therefore,  they  are  not  received  into  com- 
munion with  those  churches  which  are  every  way  Apostoli- 
cal ;  for  this  reason — because  of  the  difference  of  their 
faith,  which  is,  in  no  sense,  Apostolical."  Again, 
"  what,  if  a  bishop,  or  a  deacon,  or  a  widow,  or  a  virgin, 
or  a  doctor  in  the  church,  or  a  confessor,  shall  have  fallen 
from  the  faith ;  shall  heresy  by  them  obtain  the  authority  of 
truth  1  What !  do  we  prove  faith  by  persons,  and  not  rather 
persons  by  faith  ?"  "  Who  are  false  prophets,  but  false 
teachers  ?  Who  are  false  Apostles,  except  those  who  preach 
an  adulterated  gospel  V *  Again,  "  churches  were  estab-* 
lished  in  every  city  by  the  Apostles,  from  which  the  sue- 


TESTIMONY    OF    THE    FATHERS.  101 

cession  of  faith  and  the  seeds  of  doctrine  were  derived 
to  other  churches  ;  and  daily  continue  to  be  derived,  to  give 
them  existence  as  churches.  And,  by  this  process,  these 
succeeding  churches  will  be  esteemed  Apostolical,  as  the  off- 
spring of  Apostolical  churches/'  Once  more  :  "  I  am  an 
heir  of  the  Apostles.  As  they  have  provided  for  me  by  will, 
committing  the  same  to  the  faith,  and  establishing  it  as  by 
oath,  so  I  hold  it.  But  they  have  disinherited  you,  here- 
tics, and  cast  you  out  as  aliens  and  enemies.  But  whence 
are  heretics  aliens  and  enemies  to  the  Apostles  ?  It  is  by 
opposition  of  doctrine.'5  No  individual  can  read  or  hear 
these  quotations  from  Tertullian,  without  perceiving  at  once 
that,  with  him,  the  great  desideratum,  in  order  to  the  exist- 
ence of  a  true  church,  was  orthodoxy  of  faith  ;  or  the  em- 
bracing those  distinguishing  and  evangelical  doctrines  which 
were  preached  by  the  Apostles.  He  says,  expressly,  that 
those  churches  which  are  not  founded  by  Apostles  or  Apos- 
tolical men,  but  yet  agree  with  them  "  in  the  same  faith/' 
"  are,  from  this  consanguinity  of  doctrine,  to  be  esteemed 
not  less  Apostolical  than  those  churches  which  were  founded 
by  the  Apostles."  He  says,  likewise,  it  is  "  the  succession 
of  faith"  and  "  the  seeds  of  doctrine"  which  are  neces- 
sary to  give  existence  to  churches.  So  likewise  it  was  not 
any  want  of  personal  succession,  although  he  affirms  they  did 
not  possess  even  this,  but  "opposition  of  doctrine,"  which 
proved  heretics  to  be  "  aliens  and  enemies  to  the  Apostles" 
How  very  different  these  views  of  Tertullian  from  those  of 
exclusive  personal  succession  divines,  who  hold  that  it  is  no 
matter  how  sound  in  the  faith  other  churches  may  be,  yet, 
if  they  have  not  the  personal  succession,  they  are  not  to  be 
fellowshipped  as  churches  of  Jesus  Christ. ! 

That  Tertullian  was  not  a  jure  divino  Episcopalian  is 
evident  from  the  following  quotation:  "The  highest  priest, 
who  is  the  bishop,  has  the  right  of  administering  baptism. 
Then,  the  presbyters  and  deacons;   yet  not  without  the  au- 

5 


102  TESTIMONY    OF    THE    FATHERS. 

thority  of  the  bishop,  because  of  the  honor  of  the 
church.  This  being  preserved,  peace  is  preserved  : 
otherwise,  the  right  belongs  to  laymen.  However,  the 
laity  ought  especially  to  submit  humbly  and  modestly  to  the 
discipline  or  ecclesiastical  regulations  of  the  church  in  these 
matters,  and  not  assume  the  office  of  a  bishop,  seeing  their 
superiors,  the  presbyters  and  deacons,  submit  to  the  same. 
Emulation  is  the  mother  of  divisions.  AH  things  are  lawful 
to  me,  said  the  most  holy  Paul,  but  all  things  are  not  ex- 
pedient. Let  it  suffice  that  you  use  your  liberty  in  cases  of 
necessity,  where  the  condition  of  the  person,  and  the  circum- 
stances of  time  and  place  compel  you  to  it."  Who  Tertul- 
lian  means  by  the  "  highest  priest  or  bishop,"  he  informs  us 
in  his  celebrated  Apology:  he  says,  " Approved  elders  or 
presbyters  preside  among  us,  having  received  that  honor,  not 
by  money,  but  by  the  suffrages  of  their  brethren."  From  all 
of  which  it  would  appear,  that  at  the  commencement  of  the 
third  century,  the  period  when  Tertullian  lived  and  wrote, 
the  elders  or  presbyters  of  each  church,  not  at  all  by  divine 
appointment,  but  for  the  sake  of  the  order  and  peace  of  the 
church,  chose  one  of  their  number  to  preside  among  them, 
whom  they  called  their  bishop  ;  and  upon  ordinary  occasions, 
they  yielded  up  to  him  the  administration  of  ordinances, 
such  as  baptism,  &c.  It  would  likewise  seem  to  be  the 
opinion  at  least  of  Tertullian,  that  by  divine  right,  even  lay- 
men might  administer  these  ordinances;  but  that  they  should, 
except  on  very  special  occasions,  for  the  sake  of  peace  and 
order,  follow  the  example  of  the  presbyters  and  deacons,  and 
leave  them  to  be  performed  by  the  president  or  bishop.  The 
idea  of  this  father  that  laymen  or  even  deacons  may  adminis- 
ter ordinances,  under  any  circumstances,  is,  of  course,  un- 
scriptural ;  but  it  goes  to  show  how  very  far  removed  his 
sentiments  were  from  the  lofty  and  exclusive  notions  of  high 
churchmen.  It  will  likewise  be  perceived  by  all,  that  the 
form  of  government  here  described  bears  no  analogy  to  dio- 


TESTIMONY    OF    THE    FATHERS,  103 

cesan  Episcopacy .  High  churchmen  are  welcome  to  all  they 
can  get  out  of  this  witness.  The  more  closely  they  question 
him,  the  more  will  they  be  dissatisfied  with  his  testimony. 

The  last  father  whose  testimony  we  shall  introduce  into 
this  discourse,  is  Clemens  Alexandrinus,  who  flourished  at 
the  close  of  the  second  century.  He  was  presbyter  in  Alex- 
andria, and  a  prodigy  of  learning  in  his  day.  He  says 
(Paedagog.  Lib.  I.),  "  We,  who  have  rule  over  the  churches, 
are  shepherds  or  pastors  after  the  image  of  the  good  Shep- 
herd." In  Lib.  III.,  speaking  of  the  impropriety  of  women 
wearing  foreign  hair,  he  says,  "  On  whom  or  what  will  the 
presbyter  impose  his  hand?  To  whom  or  what  will  he  give 
his  blessing  ?  Not  to  the  woman  who  is  adorned,  but  to  the 
strange  locks  of  hair,  and  through  them  to  another's  head." 
Stromat,  Lib.  I.,  "Just  so  in  the  church,  the  presbyters  are 
intrusted  with  the  dignified  ministry,  the  deacons  with  the 
subordinate."  It  is  readily  admitted,  that  this  Father  once 
speaks  of  bishops,  presbyters,  and  deacons  ;  and  once  he 
inverts  the  order,  and  speaks  of  presbyters,  bishops,  and 
deacons.  But  the  bishops  of  Clement  were  like  the  bishops 
of  Tertullian,  "  approved  elders  or  presbyters,"  elected  by 
the  brethren  to  preside  among  them.  That  he  considered 
bishop  and  presbyter  the  same  order,  is  made  to  appear  be- 
yond the  semblance  of  a  doubt,  from  the  following  singular 
passage,  taken  from  his  work  entitled  Quis  dives  Salvandus 
sit :  "  Hear  a  fable,  and  yet  not  a  fable,  but  a  true  story 
reported  of  John  the  Apostle,  delivered  to  us,  and  kept  in 
memory.  After  the  death  of  the  tyrant,  when  he  (John)  had 
returned  to  Ephesus  out  of  the  isle  of  Patmos,  being  desired, 
he  went  to  the  neighboring  nations,  where  he  appointed 
bishops,  where  he  set  in  order  whole  cities,  and  where  he 
chose,  by  lot,  into  the  ecclesiastical  function,  of  those  who 
had  been  pointed  out  by  the  Spirit  as  by  name.  When  he 
was  come  to  a  certain  city,  not  far  distant,  the  name  of 
which  some  mention,  and  among  other  things  had  refreshed 


104  TESTIMONY    OF    THE    FATHERS. 

the  brethren,  beholding  a  young  man  of  a  portly  body,  a 
gracious  countenance,  and  fervent  mind,  he  looked  upon  the 
bishop,  who  was  set  over  all,  and  said  :  '  I  commit  this  young 
man  to  thy  custody,  in  presence  of  this  church,  and  Christ 
bearing  me  witness.5  When  he  had  received  the  charge,  and 
promised  the  performance  of  all  things  relative  to  it,  John 
again  urged  and  made  protestation  of  the  same  thing,  and 
afterward  departed  to  Ephesus.  And  the  presbyter,  taking 
the  young  man,  brought  him  to  his  own  house,  nourished, 
comforted,  and  cherished  him,  and  at  length  baptized  him." 
Here  it  is  most  evident  that  Clement  applies  the  terms  bishop 
and  presbyter  interchangeably  to  the  same  individual  and 
office. 

Here  closes  the  testimony  of  the  Fathers  for  the  first  two 
hundred  aud  fifty  years  of  the  history  of  the  New  Testament 
church.  We  have  presented  the  testimony  of  all  the  impor- 
tant witnesses  who  lived  and  wrote  during  this  early  period, 
and  to  whom  an  appeal  is  made  by  both  sides  of  this  con- 
troversy. It  has  been  our  intention  and  aim  to  keep  nothing 
of  importance  back  upon  either  side  of  the  question.  We 
have  labored  to  give  a  fair  and  impartial  view  of  what  they 
say  upon  this  subject.  And  we  are  entirely  willing  to  leave 
it  to  the  hearer  to  judge,  whether,  during  the  whole  of  this 
period,  he  can  find  any  thing  in  the  church  that  bears  the 
least  resemblance  to  diocesan  Episcopacy. 


LECTURE    VI. 


TESTIMONY  OF  THE  FATHERS— CONTINUED. 

Matt.  xv.  9. — "But  in  vain  do  they  worship  me,  teaching  for 
doctrines  the  commandments  of  men." 

In  the  last  lecture  we  entered  upon  the  testimony  of  the 
Fathers,  and  brought  it  down  in  the  history  of  the  church  for 
two  hundred  and  fifty  years.  During  that  period,  we  have 
no  evidence  of  the  existence  of  such  a  thing  as  prelacy.  It 
took  its  rise  about  the  middle  of  the  third  century ;  and  the 
power  of  the  prelates  over  the  people  continued  to  increase 
until  it  terminated  in  the  usurped  supreme  authority  of  the 
papal  chair.  It  is  proposed  in  the  present  discourse  to  attend 
to  the  testimony  of  the  later  fathers,  or  of  those  who  lived 
and  wrote  after  the  first  half  of  the  third  century. 

The  first  of  these  fathers  is  Cyprian,  bishop  of  Carthage. 
He  flourished  about  the  year  250.  The  quotation  made  by 
our  author  from  this  father  is  as  follows :  "  From  thence, 
through  these  changes  of  times  and  successions,  the  ordina- 
tion of  bishops  and  the  government  of  the  church  have  de- 
scended, so  that  the  church  is  built  upon  the  bishops."  This 
testimony  of  Cyprian  proves  nothing  in  favor  of  prelacy, 
unless  it  can  first  be  shown  that  the  bishops  of  Cyprian  were 
of  a  distinct  order  from  presbyters,  and  not  simply  presbyter 
bishops,  who  were  chosen  by  the  college  of  presbyters  to 
preside  over  their  councils  and  discharge  the  duties  of  presi- 
dent as  the  first  among  equals.  It  is  readily  admitted  that 
Cyprian  is  the  most  lofty  in  his  views  upon  the  authority  of 


106  TESTIMONY    OF    THE    FATHERS. 

the  bishops  of  any  of  the  fathers ;  and  yet  all  that  can  be 
fairly  inferred  from  his  writings  is,  that  a  bishop  in  his  day 
was  a  presiding  presbyter,  and  by  no  means  another  and 
superior  order  of  the  ministry.  The  following  facts  will  be 
sufficient  to  show  that,  with  Cyprian,  bishop  and  presbyter 
were  of  the  same  order. 

1.  He  asserts,  in  so  many  words,  that  the  presidents  or 
bishops  of  the  church  alone  had  the  right  to  baptize.  His 
language  is,  Epist.  73,  "Whence  we  understand  that  it  is 
lawful  for  none  but  presidents  of  the  church  to  baptize."  But 
no  one  doubts  but  that  presbyters  were  allowed  to  administer 
baptism. 

2.  He  uses  the  terms  bishop  and  priest  interchangeably, 
as  though  they  referred  to  the  same  order.  He  says,  Epist. 
67,  "  The  people  should  not  flatter  themselves  that  they  are 
free  from  fault  when  they  communicate  with  a  sinful  priest, 
and  give  their  consent  to  the  presidency  of  a  wicked  bishop. 
Wherefore  a  flock  that  is  obedient  to  God's  commands,  and 
fears  him,  ought  to  separate  from  a  wicked  bishop,  and  not 
to  join  in  the  sacrifices  of  a  sacrilegious  priest ;  since  the 
flock  or  people  have  the  chief  power  of  choosing  worthy 
priests,  and  refusing  unworthy  ones, — which,  we  see,  comes 
down  to  us  from  divine  authority,  that  the  priest  should  be 
chosen  in  the  presence  of  the  flock,  and  in  the  sight  of  all ; 
that  he  may  be  approved  as  worthy  and  tit  by  the  judgment 
and  testimony  of  all."  Here  it  is  most  evident  that  bishop 
and  priest  are  used  as  interchangeable  terms,  referring  to  the 
same  order  of  clergy. 

3.  During  his  exile  from  his  flock  on  account  of  perse- 
cution, he  exhorts  his  presbyters  to  perform  his  duties  for 
him  in  his  absence.  His  words  are,  "  I  beseech  you  accord- 
ing to  your  faith  and  religion,  that  you  perform  your  own 
duties,  and  also  those  belonging  to  me,  so  that  nothing  may 
be  wanting  either  in  discipline  or  diligence."  Again  :  "I 
rely  upon  your  love  and  your  religion,  which  I  well  know, 


TESTIMONY    OF    THE    FATHERS.  107 

and  by  these  letters  I  exhort  and  commit  the  charge  to  you,  that 
you,  whose  presence  does  not  expose  you  to  such  peril,  would 
discharge  my  duty,  act  in  my  place,  and  perform  all  those 
things  which  the  administration  of  the  church  requires."  If, 
in  the  opinion  of  Cyprian,  bishops  and  presbyters  were  not 
of  the  same  order,  so  that  presbyters  had  no  right  to  perform 
the  duties  of  a  bishop,  he  never  would  have  exhorted  them 
to  discharge  his  duties  in  his  absence.  Pray,  what  would 
be  thought  of  Bisnop  Delancy,  if,  during  an  absence  from 
his  diocese,  he  was  to  write  to  his  presbyters  to  discharge  his 
duties  for  him ! 

4.  Cyprian  speaks  of  the  ordination  of  a  bishop,  as 
though  he  was  the  pastor  of  a  single  flock.  He  says,  "  This, 
therefore,  is  to  be  observed  and  held  as  founded  on  divine 
tradition  and  Apostolic  practice,  which  is  also  kept  up  with 
us,  and  almost  in  all  provinces,  that,  in  order  to  the  right 
performance  of  ordination,  the  neighboring  bishops  of  the 
same  province  meet  with  that  flock  to  which  the  bishop  is 
ordained,  and  that  the  bishop  be  cho|en  in  presence  of  the 
people,  who  know  every  one's  life,  and  are  acquainted  with 
their  whole  conversation."  This,  certainly,  makes  out  a 
very  fair  presbyterial  ordination.  The  bishop  is  ordained 
pastor  of  a  single  flock,  who  make  choice  of  him  as  their 
pastor,  and  he  is  ordained  by  a  presbytery  made  up  of  the 
neighboring  bishops.  Upon  the  very  passage  of  the  testi- 
mony of  Cyprian  quoted  by  our  author,  Dr.  Miller  remarks  : 
"  When  Cyprian  speaks  of  the  church  as  '  being  built  on 
the  bishops,'  and  of  all  the  acts  of  the  church  as  being 
managed  by  them,  Episcopalians  hastily  triumph,  as  if  this 
were  decided  testimony  in  their  favor.  But  their  triumph  is 
premature.  Does  Cyprian  in  these  passages  refer  to  dioce- 
san or  parochial  bishops? — to  prelates  who  have  the  govern- 
ment of  a  diocese  containing  a  number  of  congregations 
and  their  ministers? — or  to  pastors  of  single  flocks?  The 
latter,  from  the  whole  strain  of  his  epistles,  is  evidently  his 


108  TESTIMONY    OF    THE    FATHERS. 

meaning.  He  nowhere  gives  the  least  hint  of  having  more 
than  one  congregation  under  his  own  care.  He  represents 
his  whole  church  as  ordinarily  joining  together  in  the  cele- 
bration of  the  eucharist.  He  declares  his  resolution  to  do 
nothing  without  the  council  of  his  elders  and  the  consent  of 
his  flock.  He  affirms  that  every  church,  when  properly  or- 
ganized, consists  of  a  bishop,  clergy,  and  the  brotherhood. 
All  these  representations  apply  only  to  parochial,  and  by  no 
means  to  diocesan  Episcopacy.  For,  if  such  officers  belong 
to  every  church  or  organized  religious  society,  then  we 
must  conclude  that,  by  the  clergy  of  each  church,  as  distin- 
guished from  the  bishop,  is  meant  those  elders  who  assisted 
the  pastor  in  the  discharge  of  parochial  duty.  It  is  well 
known  that  Cyprian  applies  the  term  clergy  to  all  sorts  of 
church  officers.  In  his  epistles,  not  only  the  presbyters  or 
elders,  but  the  deacons,  subdeacons,  readers,  and  acalyths, 
are  all  spoken  of  as  belonging  to  the  clergy.  The  ordina- 
tion of  such  persons,  (for  it  seems  in  his  time  they  were  all 
formally  ordained,)  h%  calls  '  ordinationes  clericce,'  and 
the  letters  he  transmitted  by  them  he  styles  i  literce  clerical 
Here,  then,  you  may  at  once  perceive  upon  which  side  of 
this  question  the  testimony  of  Cyprian  bears.  It  goes  to 
show  that  the  bishops  of  his  day  wTere  parochial,  and  not 
diocesan  bishops." 

The  next  Father  cited  by  our  author  is  Firmilian,  bishop 
of  Ceesarea.  From  his  letter  to  Cyprian  our  author  quotes 
the  following  part  of  a  sentence :  "  The  bishops  who  suc- 
ceeded the  Apostles,  by  a  vicarious  ordination. "  Who  ever 
denied  that  bishops  succeeded  the  Apostles?  And  why 
produce  a  witness  to  prove  what  nobody  disputes?  The 
question  is,  Were  they  diocesan  or  presbyter  bishops  ?  Fir- 
milian himself  declares  that  the  power  of  baptizing,  confirm- 
ing, and  ordaining,  is  vested  with  the  presbyters.  He  uses 
the  following  language  :  "  But  the  other  heretics  also,  if 
they  separate  from  the  church,  can  have  no  power  or  grace ; 


TESTIMONY    OF    THE    FATHERS.  109 

since  all  power  and  grace  are  placed  in  the  church  where 
presbyters  preside,  in  whom  is  vested  the  power  of  baptizing 
and  imposition  of  hands  and  ordination."  (Epis.  to  Cyprian, 
75.)  Now,  if  presbyters,  in  the  days  of  Firmilian,  confirmed 
and  ordained,  certainly  his  bishops  could  have  been  nothing 
more  than  presbyter  bishops.  Next  our  author  cites  the  tes- 
timony of  Clarus,  a  bishop  in  the  council  of  Carthage,  who 
says,  "  The  will  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  is  manifest,  who 
sent  his  Apostles  and  gave  to  them  alone  the  power  which 
had  been  given  to  him  by  the  Father  ;  whom  we  have  sue- 
ceeded,  governing  the  church  of  the  Lord  with  the  same 
power."  Any  candid  hearer  will  perceive  at  once  that  this 
testimony  proves  nothing  upon  the  subject  of  the  present 
controversy.  We  all  admit  that  the  bishops  of  the  churches 
have  succeeded  the  Apostles ;  but  the  question  returns, 
Have  they  succeeded  them  as  Apostles,  or  as  presbyter 
bishops  ?  Upon  this  question,  "  this  deponent  saith  not" 
His  testimony  does  not  bear  upon  it  in  the  least.  Our  au- 
thor closes  his  array  of  testimony  with  the  following  quota- 
tion from  Eusebius  :  "  And  in  the  sequel  of  this  history,  the 
succession  of  bishops  from  the  Apostles  shall  be  set  down 
in  order."  And,  pray,  does  this  prove  any  thing  to  his  pur- 
pose ?  We  shall  show,  in  another  place,  that  this  history, 
by  Eusebius,  of  the  succession  of  bishops  from  the  Apostles, 
is,  by  his  own  confession,  very  dark  and  doubtful.  But, 
suppose  it  was  clear  as  sunlight,  it  would  only  prove  that 
there  was  a  succession  of  bishops  from  the  Apostles  ;  it 
would  by  no  means  prove  that  they  were  diocesans. 

Thus  we  have  gone  through  with  the  witnesses  intro- 
duced by  our  author  ;  and  whenever  they  have  borne  testi- 
mony upon  the  point  at  issue,  that  testimony  has  been  in 
our  favor.  But  we  have  testimony  by  some  of  the  most 
eminent  fathers,  which  has  been  entirely  omitted  by 
our  author,  and  which  will  probably  somewhat  surprise 
you,    on     account    of    its    clear    and    convincing   nature. 

5* 


110  TESTIMONY    OP    THE    FATHERS. 

The  first  witness  we  shall  introduce  is  Jerome,  who  lived 
and  wrote  about  the  year  380,  and  who  is  admitted  by  all 
parties  to  have  been  one  of  the  most  learned  and  eminent  of 
the  fathers.  In  his  commentary  on  Titus,  he  has  the  follow- 
ing remarkable  passage :  "  Let  us  diligently  attend  to  the 
words  of  the  Apostle,  saying,  *  that  thou  mayest  ordain  elders 
in  every  city  as  I  have  appointed  thee ;'  who,  discoursing 
in  what  follows,  what  sort  of  presbyter  is  to  be  ordained, 
saith,  '  if  any  one  be  blameless,  the  husband  of  one  wife/ 
&c.,'  afterwards  adds,  '  for  a  bishop  must  be  blameless,  as 
the  steward  of  God,'  &x.  A  presbyter,  therefore,  is  the 
same  as  a  bishop ;  and  before  there  were,  by  the  devil's  in- 
stinct, parties  in  religion,  and  it  was  said  among  the  people, 
I  am  of  Paul,  I  of  Apollos,  and  I  of  Cephas,  the  churches 
were  governed  by  the  common  council  of  presbyters.  But 
afterwards,  when  every  one  thought  that  those  whom  he 
baptized  were  rather  his  than  Christ's,  it  was  determined, 
through  the  whole  world,  that  one  of  the  presbyters  should 
be  set  above  the  rest,  to  whom  all  care  of  the  church  should 
belong,  that  the  seeds  of  schism  might  be  taken  away.  If 
any  suppose  that  it  is  merely  our  opinion  and  not  of  the 
Scriptures,  that  bishop  and  presbyter  are  the  same,  and  that 
one  is  the  name  of  age,  the  other  of  office,  let  him  read  the 
words  of  the  Apostle  to  the  Philippians,  saying,  *  Paul  and 
Timothy,  the  servants  of  Jesus  Christ,  to  all  the  saints  in 
Christ  Jesus  that  are  at  Philippi,  with  the  bishops  and  dea- 
cons.' Philippi  is  a  city  of  Macedonia,  and  certainly  in  one 
city  there  could  not  be  more  than  one  bishop,  as  they  are 
now  styled  ;  but,  at  that  time,  they  called  the  same  men  bish- 
ops, whom  they  called  presbyters.  Therefore  he  speaks  in- 
differently of  bishops  as  of  presbyters.  This  may  seem  even 
yet  doubtful  to  some,  till  it  be  proved  by  another  testimony. 
It  is  written  in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  that  when  the 
Apostle  came  to  Miletus,  he  sent  to  Ephesus  and  called  the 
presbyters  of  that  church,  to  whom,  among  other  things,  he 


TESTIMONY    OF    THE    FATHERS,  111 

said,  '  Take  heed  to  yourselves,  and  to  all  the  flock  over 
whom  the  Holy  Ghost  hath  made  you  bishops,  to  feed  the 
church  of  God,  which  he  hath  purchased  with  his  own 
blood.'  Here  observe,  diligently,  that  calling  together  the 
presbyters  of  one  city,  Ephesus,  he  afterwards  styles  the 
same  persons  bishops.  If  any  will  receive  that  epistle  which 
is  written  in  the  name  of  Paul  to  the  Hebrews,  there  also 
the  care  of  the  church  is  equally  divided  among  many ;  since 
he  writes  to  the  people,  '  Obey  them  that  have  the  rule  over 
you,  and  submit  yourselves  ;  for  they  watch  for  your  souls  as 
those  that  must  give  an  account,  that  they  may  do  it  with  joy 
and  not  with  grief,  for  that  is  unprofitable  for  you.'  And  Peter, 
so  called  from  the  firmness  of  his  faith,  in  his  epistle,  saith, 
'  The  presbyters,  which  are  among  you  I  exhort,  who  am  also  a 
presbyter,  and  a  witness  of  the  sufferings  of  Christ,  and  also  a 
partaker  of  the  glory  that  shall  be  revealed  ;  feed  the  flock 
of  God  which  is  among  you,  not  by  constraint,  but  willingly.' 
These  things  I  have  written  to  show  that,  among  the  an- 
cients, presbyters  and  bishops  were  the  same  ;  but,  by  lit- 
tle and  little,  that  all  the  seeds  of  dissension  might  be  pluck- 
ed up,  the  whole  care  was  devolved  on  one.  As,  therefore, 
the  presbyters  know  that  by  the  custom  of  the  church  they 
are  subject  to  him  who  is  their  president,  so  let  bishops 
know  that  they  are  above  presbyters  more  by  the  custom  of 
the  church,  than  by  the  true  dispensation  of  Christ ;  and  that 
they  ought  to  rule  the  church  in  common  ;  imitating  Moses, 
who,  when  he  might  alone  rule  the  people  of  Israel,  chose 
seventy  with  whom  he  might  judge  the  people."  Again  : 
in  his  epistle  to  Evagrius,  he  uses  the  following  unequivocal 
language  :  "  I  hear  that  a  certain  person  has  broken  out 
into  such  folly  that  he  prefers  deacons  before  presbyters,  i.  e. 
before  bishops  ;  for,  when  the  Apostle  'clearly  teaches  that 
presbyters  and  bishops  were  the  same,  who  can  endure  it 
that  a  minister  of  tables  and  widows  should  proudly  exalt 
himself  above  those,  at  whose  prayers  the  body  and  blood 


112  TESTIMONY    OF    THE    FATHERS. 

of  Christ  is  made !      Do  you   seek  for  authority  1     Hear 
that   testimony :    '  Paul    and    Timothy,    servants   of  Jesus 
Christ,  to  all  the  saints  in  Christ  Jesus  which  are  at  Philippi, 
with  the  bishops   and  deacons.'     Would  you  have  another 
example  ?  In  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  Paul  speaks  thus  to 
the  priests  of  one  church  :  '  Take  heed  to  yourselves,  and  to 
all  the  flock  over  which  the  Holy  Ghost  hath  made  you  bish- 
ops ;  that  you  govern  the  church  which  he  hath  purchased 
with  his  blood.'     And,  lest  any  should  contend  about  there 
being  a  plurality  of  bishops  in  one  church,  hear  also  another 
testimony,  by  which  it  may  most  manifestly  be  proved  that 
a  bishop  and  a  presbyter  are  the  same :  '  For  this  cause  left 
I  thee  in  Crete  ;  that  thou  shouldest  set  in  order  the  things 
that  are  wanting,  and  ordain  presbyters  in  every  city,  as  I 
have  appointed  thee,  if  any  be  blameless.     For  a  bishop  must 
be  blameless  as  the  steward  of  God;'  and  to  Timothy,  'Ne- 
glect not  the  gift  that  is  in  thee,  which  was  given  there  by 
prophecy,  by  the  laying  on  of  hands  of  the  presbytery.'  And 
Peter  also,  in  his  first  epistle,  saith,  '  The  presbyters  which 
are   among  you  I  exhort,  who  am   also  a  presbyter,  and  a 
witness  of  the  sufferings  of  Christ,  and  also  a  partaker  of  the 
glory  that  shall  be  revealed,  to  rule  the  flock  of  Christ,  and 
to  inspect  it,  not  of  constraint,  but  willingly,  according  to 
God ;'    which   is  more  significantly  expressed  in  the  Greek 
emaxoTTovvTsg,  i.  e.,  superintending  it;    whence  the  name  of 
bishop  is  drawn.  Does  the  testimony  of  such  men  appear  small 
to  thee  ?     Let  the  evangelical  trumpet  sound  ;  the  son  of 
thunder,  whom  Jesus  Christ  loved  much,  who  drank  the 
streams  of  doctrine  from  our  Saviour's  breast :  '  The  Pres- 
byter to  the  elect  Lady  and  her  children,  whom  I  love  in  the 
truth.'     And  in  another  epistle,  '  The  Presbyter  to  the  be- 
loved Gaius,  whom  I  love  in  the  truth.'     But  that  one  was 
afterwards  chosen  who  should  be  set  above  the  rest,  was 
done  as  a  remedy  against  schism  ;  lest  every  one,  drawing 
the  church  of  Christ  to  himself,  should  break  it  in  pieces. 


TESTIMONY    OF    THE    FATHERS,  113 

For  at  Alexandria,  from  Mark  the  Evangelist  to  Heracles 
and  Dionysius  the  bishops  thereof,  the  presbyters  always 
named  one,  chosen  from  among  them  and  placed  in  a  higher 
degree — Bishop :  as  if  an  army  should  choose  an  empe- 
ror, or  the  deacons  should  choose  one  of  themselves,  whom 
they  knew  to  be  most  diligent,  and  call  him  Arch-Deacon." 
Once  more,  in  this  epistle  he  says,  "  Presbyter  and  Bishop — 
the  one  is  the  name  of  age,  the  other  of  dignity.  Whence, 
in  the  epistles  to  Timothy  and  Titus,  there  is  mention  made 
of  the  ordination  of  bishops  and  deacons,  but  not  of  pres- 
byters, because  the  presbyter  is  included  in  the  bishop." 
This  testimony  of  Jerome  is  so  plain  as  to  need  no  com- 
ment. He  expressly  affirms  and  proves,  by  a  labored  argu- 
ment, that  in  the  days  of  the  Apostles  presbyter  and  bishop 
were  the  same — that  the  appointment  of  one  presbyter  to 
preside  over  the  rest,  grew  out  of  the  circumstances  of  the 
church ;  and  that  the  authority  of  bishops,  as  distinguished 
from  that  of  presbyters,  came  in  "  little  by  little,"  or  by 
degrees.  Augustine,  bishop  of  Hippo,  in  an  epistle  to  Jerome, 
holds  the  following  language  upon  this  subject:  "I  entreat 
you  to  correct  me  faithfully  when  you  see  I  need  it ;  for  al- 
though, according  to  the  names  of  honor  which  the  cus- 
tom of  the  church  has  now  brought  into  use,  the  office  of  bish- 
op is  greater  than  that  of  presbyter,  nevertheless,  in  many 
respects  Augustine  is  inferior  to  Jerome."  Bishop  Jewell, 
in  his  "  Defence  of  his  Apology  for  the  Church  of  England," 
quotes  this  passage  from  Augustine  to  prove  the  original 
identity  of  presbyter  and  bishop,  and  translates  it  as  follows  : 
"  The  office  of  bishop  is  above  the  office  of  priest,  not  by 
authority  of  the  Scriptures,  but  after  the  names  of  honor  which 
the  custom  of  the  church  hath  now  attained."  Hilary,  or 
Ambrose,  as  he  is  sometimes  called,  who  wrote  in  376,  in 
his  commentary  upon  Ephesians,  iv.  2,  says :  "  After  that 
churches  were  planted  in  all  places  and  officers  ordained, 
matters  xoere  settled  otherwise  than  they  were  in  the  begin- 


114  TESTIMONY    OF    THE    FATHERS 

ning.  And  hence  it  is  that  the  Apostles'  writings  do  not 
in  all  things  agree  to  the  present  constitution  of  the  church: 
because  they  were  written  under  the  first  rise  of  the  church, 
he  calls  Timothy,  who  was  created  a  presbyter  by  him,  a 
bishop ;  for  so  at  first  the  presbyters  were  called.  Among 
whom  this  was  the  course  of  governing  churches ;  that,  as 
one  withdrew,  another  took  his  place  ;  and  in  Egypt,  even 
at  this  day,  presbyters  ordain  in  the  bishop's  absence  ;  but 
because  the  following  presbyters  began  to  be  found  un- 
worthy to  hold  the  first  place,  the  method  was  changed — the 
council  providing  that  not  order,  but  merit,  should  create  a 
bishop."     From  this  remarkable  passage  we  learn, 

1.  That  in  the  Apostles'  days  there  was  no  difference  be- 
tween bishop  and  presbyter. 

2.  That,  in  the  days  of  Ambrose,  this  difference  did  not 
consist  in  any  distinction  of  order,  but  the  presbyter  who 
was  considered  the  most  meritorious  was  appointed  to  pre- 
side over  the  rest. 

3.  That  this  was  done,  not  by  divine  authority,  but  by 
an  ordinance  or  appointment  of  the  council.  This  father 
says  expressly,  "Because  the  following  presbyters  began  to 
be  found  unworthy  to  hold  the  first  place,  the  method,  was 
changed — the  council  providing  that  not  order,  but  merit, 
should  create  a  bishop"  Chrysostom,  who  wrote  about  the 
year  393,  says  :  "  The  Apostles  having  discoursed  concern- 
ing bishops  and  described  them,  declaring  what  they  ought 
to  be,  and  from  what  they  ought  to  abstain,  omitting  the 
order  of  presbyters,  descends  to  the  deacons.  And  why  so, 
but  because  between  bishop  and  presbyter  there  is  scarcely 
any  difference ;  and  to  them  is  committed  both  the  instruc- 
tions and  presidency  of  the  church  ;  and  whatever  he  said 
of  bishops,  agrees  also  to  presbyters.  In  ordination  alone, 
they  have  gone  beyond  presbyters  ;  and  of  this  they  seem  to 

have  DEFRAUDED  THEM." 


TESTIMONY    OF    THE    FATHERS.  115 

Were  it  necessary,  we  might  add  testimony  of  the  same 
kind  to  any  extent ;  but  enough  has  been  already  produced 
to  show  conclusively  that  the  testimony  of  the  Fathers  is 
very  far  from  aiding  the  cause  of  prelacy.  The  great  won- 
der is,  that  churchmen  should  appeal  with  so  much  confi- 
dence and  triumph  to  the  fathers,  when  they  can  find  so 
little  in  their  writings  in  their  favor,  and  so  much  positively 
against  them.  No  individual  can  give  the  writings  of  the 
Fathers  an  impartial  perusal  without  being  convinced  that 
clerical  parity  was  the  doctrine  taught  by  Christ  and  his 
Apostles,  and  that  this  parity  existed  for  many  years  in  the 
New  Testament  church.  When  we  come  to  lecture  upon 
the  rise  of  Episcopacy  in  the  church,  we  shall  have  occasion 
to  mention  certain  facts  which  will  go  very  much  to 
strengthen  this  position.  We  here  close  the  testimony  of 
the  Fathers,  and  therewith  our  present  discourse. 


LECTURE    VII, 


TESTIMONY  OF  EPISCOPALIANS   IN  OUR  FAVOR. 

Luke  xix.  22. — "  Out  of  thine  own  mouth  will  I  condemn  thee." 

We  propose  this  evening  to  deliver  a  brief  lecture  upon 
the  testimony  of  Episcopalians  in  our  favor.  It  will  be 
easy  to  show  that  many  of  the  most  learned  and  eminent 
Episcopal  divines  have  been  entirely  opposed  to  those  exclu- 
sive doctrines,  against  which  we  are  at  present  contending. 
We  will  commence  with  what  Dr.  Willet,  an  eminent  divine 
of  the  church  of  England,  in  the  reign  of  Queen  Elizabeth, 
says  of  the  three  opinions  which  existed  in  his  day,  upon  the 
subject  of  the  present  controversy.  He  says,  "  Of  the  dif- 
ference between  bishops  and  priests,  there  are  three  opin- 
ions :  the  first,  of  Aerius,  who  did  hold  that  all  ministers 
should  be  equal,  and  that  a  bishop  was  not,  neither  ought 
to  be,  superior  to  a  priest.  The  second  opinion  is  the  other 
extreme  of  the  Papists,  who  would  have  not  only  a  differ- 
ence, but  a  princely  pre-eminence  of  their  bishops  over  the 
clergy,  and  that  by  the  word  of  God.  And  they  urge  it  to 
be  so  necessary,  that  they  are  no  true  churches  which  receive 
not  their  pontifical  hierarchy.  The  third  opinion  is  be- 
tween both ;  that,  although  the  distinction  of  bishops  and 
priests,  as  it  is  now  received,  cannot  be  proved  out  of  Scrip- 
ture, yet  it  is  very  necessary  for  the  policy  of  the  church,  to 
avoid  schisms  and  to  preserve  it  in  unity.  Of  this  judg- 
ment Bishop  Jewell  against  Harding  showeth  both  Chrysos- 
tom,  Ambrose,  and  Jerome,  to  have  been.  Jerome  thus 
writeth :  '  The  Apostle  teacheth  evidently  that  bishop  and 


TESTIMONY    OF    EPISCOPALIANS    Ix\    OUK    FAVOR.         117 

priest  were  the  same ;  but  that  one  was  afterwards  chosen 
to  be  set  over  the  rest,  as  a  remedy  against  schism.'  To 
this  opinion  of  Jerome  subscribeth  Bishop  Jewell  and 
another  most  reverend  prelate  of  our  church,  Archbishop 
Whitgift."  The  opinion  of  Bishop  Jewell,  in  his  work 
against  Harding,  which  is  referred  to  in  the  foregoing  quo- 
tation, is  given  by  that  learned  prelate  in  the  following  une- 
quivocal language  (Defence,  &c,  against  Harding,  page 
248)  :  "  But  what  meant  Mr.  Harding,  to  come  here  with 
the  difference  between  priests  and  bishops?  Thinketh  he 
that  priests  and  bishops  hold  only  by  tradition  ?  or  is  it  so 
horrible  a  heresy  as  he  maketh  it,  to  say  that,  by  the  Scrip- 
tures of  God,  a  bishop  and  a  priest  are  all  one  ?  or  knoweth 
he  how  far,  and  to  whom,  he  reacheth  the  name  of  an  here- 
tic ?  Verily,  Chrysostom  saith,  '  Inter  Episcopum  et  Pres- 
byterum  interest  fere  nihil ;'  i.  e.,  '  between  a  bishop  and  a 
priest  there  is  in  a  manner  no  difference. '  St.  Jerome  saith 
somewhat  in  a  rougher  sort,  c  Audio  quendam  in  tantam 
eripuisse  recordium,  ut  diaconos  Presbyteris  id  est,  Episco- 
pis  ante  ferrit  cum  Apostolus  perspicue  doceat  eosdem  esse 
Presbyteros  quos  Episcopos ;'  i.  e., '  I  hear  say  there  is  one  be- 
come so  peevish,  that  he  setteth  deacons  before  priests ; 
that  is  to  say,  bishops;  whereas  the  Apostle  plainly  teacheth 
us  that  priests  and  bishops  be  all  one.'  St.  Augustine  also 
saith,  '  Quid  est  Episcopus,  nisi  primus  presbyter,  hoc  est 
summus  sacerdos  !'  '  What  is  a  bishop  but  the  first  priest  ; 
that  is  to  say,  the  highest  priest  V  So  saith  St.  Ambrose  : 
1  Episcopi  et  Presbyteri  una  ordinatio  est — uterque,  enim, 
sacerdos  est — sed  Episcopus  primus  est ;'  i.  e  ,  '  there  is  but 
one  consecration  of  priest  and  bishop;  for,  both  of  them  are 
priests,  but  the  bishop  is  the  first.'  All  these  and  other 
more  holy  Fathers,  together  with  St.  Paul  the  Apostle,  for 
thus  saying,  by  Mr.  Harding's  advice,  must  be  holden  for 
heretics."  It  is  worthy  of  remark,  that  this  work  of  Bishop 
Jewell  was  published  to  the  world  as  containing  the  doc- 


118        TESTIMONY    OF    EPISCOPALIANS    IN    OUR    FAVOR. 

trine  of  the  church  of  England.  It  was  ordered  to  be  sus- 
pended, by  a  chain,  in  all  the  churches  in  the  kingdom,  and 
to  be  publicly  read  as  a  theological  standard. 

Bishop  Burnet,  in  his  History  of  the  Reformation,  has  pub- 
lished a  very  interesting  document  of  those  times,  called,  *  a 
declaration  made  of  the  functions  and  divine  institutions  of 
bishops  and  priests.'  from  which  we  make  the  following  ex- 
tracts:  "  That  this  office,  this  power,  this  authority,  was 
committed  and  given  by  Christ  and  his  Apostles  unto  cer- 
tain persons  only — that  is  to  say,  unto  priests  or  bishops, 
whom  they  did  elect,  call,  and  admit  thereunto,  by  their 
prayer  and  imposition  of  their  hands."  Again :  "  And 
surely  this  is  the  whole  virtue  and  efficacy,  and  the  cause 
also  of  the  institution  of  this  sacrament,  as  it  is  found  in  the 
New  Testament ;  for,  albeit,  the  holy  fathers  of  the  church 
which  succeeded  the  Apostles,  minding  to  beautify  and  or- 
nate the  church  of  Christ  with  all  those  things  which  were 
commendable  in  the  temple  of  the  Jews,  did  devise,  not  only 
certain  other  ceremonies  than  before  rehearsed,  as  tonsures, 
rasures,  unctions,  and  such  other  observances  to  be  used  in 
the  administration  of  the  said  sacraments,  but  did  also  insti- 
tute certain  inferior  orders  or  degrees — janitors,  lictors,  ex- 
orcists, acolits,  and  sub-deacons,  and  deputed  to  every  one 
of  those  certain  offices  to  execute  in  the  church  :  wherein 
they  followed  undoubtedly  the  example  and  rites  used  in  the 
Old  Testament.  Yet  the  truth  is,  that  in  the  New  Tes- 
tament there  is  no  mention  made  of  any  degrees  or  distinc- 
tions in  orders,  but  only  of  deacons  or  ministers  and  of 
priests  or  bishops  ;  nor  is  there  any  word  spoken  of  any 
other  ceremony  used  in  the  confirming  of  this  sacrament, 
but  only  of  prayer  and  the  imposition  of  the  bishop's  hands." 
This  document  is  signed  by  Thomas  Cromwell,  the  king's 
vicar-general ;  T.  Cranmer,  archbishop  of  Canterbury ; 
Edward,  archbishop  of  York;  John,  bishop  of  London; 
Cuthbert,  bishop  of  Durham ;    John,   bishop  of  Lincoln ; 


TESTIMONY    OP    EPISCOPALIANS    IN    OUR    FAVOR.         119 

John,  bishop  of  Bath ;  Thomas,  bishop  of  Ely  ;  John,  bishop 
of  Bangor  ;  Nicholas,  bishop  of  Salisbury  ;  Edward,  bishop 
of  Hereford  ;  Hugo,  bishop  of  Worcester  ;  John,  bishop  of 
Rochester  ;  Richard,  bishop  of  Chichester  ;  and  others  too 
numerous  to  mention.  Bishop  Burnet,  speaking  of  this 
document,  among  others,  says :  "  In  this  writing,  bishops 
and  priests  are  spoken  of  as  one  and  the  same  office.  It  had 
been  the  common  style  of  that  age  to  reckon  bishops  and 
priests  as  the  same  office."  To  this  testimony  Bishop  Bur- 
net adds  his  own.  He  says  expressly  :  "  I  acknowledge 
bishop  and  presbyter  to  be  one  and  the  same  office,  and  so 
plead  for  no  new  office-bearer  in  the  church.''  The  learned 
Episcopal  historian,  Dr.  Warner,  asserts  that  "  Archbishop 
Bancroft  was  the  first  man  in  the  church  of  England  who 
preached  up  the  divine  right  of  Episcopacy."  This  state- 
ment has  been  corroborated  by  many  other  Episcopal  wri- 
ters. Even  Bishop  White  of  Pennsylvania  quotes  this  pas- 
sage from  Warner,  to  show  that  the  doctrine  of  divine  right 
was  never  embraced  by  the  great  body  of  the  most  eminent 
divines  of  the  church  of  England.  This  Archbishop  Ban- 
croft, in  a  sermon  which  he  preached  on  a  public  occasion 
in  1588,  endeavored  to  maintain  "  that  the  bishops  of  Eng- 
land were  a  distinct  order  from  priests,  and  had  superiority 
over  them  by  divine  right,  and  directly  from  God,  and  that 
the  denial  of  it  was  heresy."  This  sermon  occasioned  much 
excitement,  and  gave  great  offence.  Dr.  Raignolds,  who 
was  then  professor  of  divinity  in  the  University  of  Oxford, 
being  written  to  by  a  friend  for  his  opinion  on  the  subject, 
returned  the  following  reply  :  "  Of  the  two  opinions  which 
your  honor  mentions  in  the  sermon  of  Dr.  Bancroft,  the 
first  is  that  which  asserts  the  superiority  which  the  prelates 
among  us  have  over  the  clergy  to  be  a  divine  institution. 
He  does  not,  indeed,  assert  this  in  express  terms  ;  but  he 
does  by  necessary  consequence ;  in  which  he  affirms  the 
opinion  of  those  who  oppose  that  superiority  to  be  a  heresy ; 


120        TESTIMONY    OF    EPISCOPALIANS    IN    OUR    FAVOR. 

in  which,  in  my  judgment,  he  has  committed  an  oversight  ; 
and  I  believe  he  himself  will  acknowledge  it,  if  duly  admon- 
ished concerning  it.  All  that  have  labored  in  reforming 
the  church  for  five  hundred  years  past,  have  taught  that  all 
pastors,  be  they  entitled  bishops  or  priests,  have  equal  au- 
thority and  power  by  God's  word  :  as,  first,  the  Waldenses ; 
next,  Marsilius  Petavius;  then  WicklifF  and  his  disciples; 
afterwards,  Huss  and  the  Hussites  ;  and,  last  of  all,  Luther, 
Calvin,  Brentius,  Bullinger,  and  Musculus.  Among  our- 
selves, we  have  bishops,  the  queen's  professors  of  divinity 
in  our  universities,  and  other  learned  men,  as  Bradford, 
Lambert,  Jewell,  Pilkington,  Humphrey,  Fulke;  who  all 
agree  in  this  matter,  and  so  do  all  divines  beyond  sea  that 
I  ever  read,  and  doubtless  many  more  whom  I  never  read. 
But  why  do  I  speak  of  particular  persons?  It  is  the  com- 
mon judgment  of  the  reformed  churches  of  Helvetia,  Savoy, 
France,  Scotland, Germany,  Hungary,  the  low  countries,  and 
our  own — (the  Church  of  England.)  Wherefore,  sure  Dr. 
Bancroft  will  certainly  never  pretend  that  an  heresy,  con- 
demned by  the  consent  of  the  whole  church  in  its  most 
flourishing  times,  was  yet  accounted  a  sound  and  Christian 
doctrine  by  all  these  I  have  mentioned.  I  hope  that  he 
will  acknowledge  that  he  was  mistaken,  when  he  asserted 
the  superiority  which  bishops  have  among  us  over  the 
clergy,  to  be  God's  own  ordinance."  "  Professor  Raig- 
nolds,"  says  Dr.  Miller,  "  was  acknowledged  by  all  his  con- 
temporaries to  be  a  prodigy  of  learning.  Bishop  Hall  used 
to  say  that  '  his  memory  and  reading  were  nearly  a  miracle.' 
He  was  particularly  conversant  with  the  fathers  and  early 
historians ;  was  a  critic  in  the  languages  ;  was  celebrated 
for  his  wit ;  and  so  eminent  for  piety  and  sanctity  of  life 
that  Crackenthorp  said  of  him  that,  to  name  Raignolds 
was  to  commend  virtue  itself." 

The  learned  Dr.  Whitaker,  who  was  professor  of  divinity 
in  the  University  of  Cambridge,  in  writing  against  Campion 


TESTIMONY    OF    EPISCOPALIANS    IN    OUR    FAVOR.         121 

the  Jesuit,  uses  the  following  language  :  "  Whereas  you 
assert,  with  many  words,  that  bishop  and  presbyter  are 
diverse;  if  you  will  retain  the  character  of  a  modest  divine, 
you  must  not  so  confidently  affirm  that  which  all  men  see  to 
be  so  evidently  false.  For  what  is  so  well  known  as  this 
which  you  acknowledge  not?  Jerome  plainly  writeth,  that 
elders  and  bishops  are  the  same,  and  confirmeth  it  by  many 
places  of  Scripture."  This  same  eminent  Episcopalian  in 
writing  against  Bellarmine  says,  "  From  2  Timothy  i.  6, 
we  understand  that  Timothy  had  hands  laid  on  him  by  pres- 
byters, who  at  that  time  governed  the  church  in  common 
council"  Bishop  Croft,  in  his  work  entitled  "  Naked 
Truth/'  has  the  following  passage  :  "  The  Scripture  no- 
where expresses  any  distinction  of  order  among  the  elders ; 
we  find  there  but  two  orders  mentioned,  bishops  and  deacons. 
The  Scripture  distinguished  not  the  order  of  bishops  and 
priests  ;  for  them  we  find  but  one  kind  of  ordination,  then 
certainly  but  one  order ;  for  two  distinct  orders  cannot  be 
conferred  in  the  instant  by  the  same  words,  by  the  same 
actions."  The  Rev.  Mr.  Gisborne,  who  was  a  distinguish- 
ed and  popular  writer  of  the  church  of  England,  in  a  work  of 
his  entitled,  "  Survey  of  the  Christian  Religion,"  expresses 
himself  upon  this  subject  in  the  following  manner:  "If 
Christ  and  his  Apostles  enjoined  the  uniform  adoption  of 
Episcopacy,  the  question  is  decided.  Did  Christ  then,  or 
his  disciples,  deliver  or  indirectly  convey  such  an  injunc- 
tion? This  topic  has  been  greatly  controverted.  The  fact 
appears  to  be  this  :  that  the  Saviour  did  not  pronounce  upon 
the  subject ;  that  the  Apostles  uniformly  established  a 
bishop  in  every  district,  as  soon  as  the  church  in  that  dis- 
trict became  numerous ;  and  this  clearly  evinced  their 
judgment  as  to  the  form  of  ecclesiastical  government  most 
advantageous,  at  least  in  those  days,  to  Christianity ;  but 
that  they  left  no  command  which  rendered  Episcopacy  uni- 
versally indispensable  in  future  times,  if  other  forms  should 


122        TESTIMONY    OF    EPISCOPALIANS    IN    OUR    FAVOR. 

evidently  promise,  through  local  opinions  and  circumstances, 
greater  benefit  to  religion.  Such  is  the  general  sentiment  of 
the  present  church  of  England  on  this  subject"  Hear  what 
Lord  George  Digby,  a  distinguished  English  nobleman,  in 
a  letter  to  a  friend,  says  :  "  He  who  would  reduce  the  church 
now,  to  the  form  of  government  in  the  most  primitive  times , 
would  not  take,  in  my  opinion,  the  best  or  wisest  course ;  I 
am  sure  not  the  safest ;  for  he  would  be  found  pecking  to- 
wards the  presbytery  of  Scotland,  which,  for  my  part,  I  be- 
lieve, in  point  of  government,  hath  a  greater  resemblance 
than  either  yours  or  ours  to  the  first  age."  Sir  Peter  King, 
Lord  Chancellor  of  England,  in  a  very  labored  work,  enti- 
tled "An  inquiry  into  the  constitution,  discipline,  unity, 
and  worship  of  the  primitive  church,  that  flourished  within 
the  first  300  years  after  Christ,"  undertakes  to  show,  "  That 
a  presbyter  in  the  primitive  church  meant  a  person  in  holy 
orders,  having  thereby  an  inherent  right  to  perform  the 
whole  office  of  a  bishop,  and  differing  from  a  bishop  in 
nothing  but  in  having  no  parish  or  pastoral  charge  :  that 
presbyters,  in  those  times  of  primitive  purity,  were  called  by 
the  same  titles,  and  were  of  the  same  specific  order  with 
bishops;  that  they  ruled  in  those  churches  to  which  they  be- 
longed ;  that  they  presided  in  church  consistories  with  the 
bishops ;  that  they  had  the  power  of  excommunication  and  of 
restoring  penitents;  that  they  confirmed;  that  there  are 
clearer  proofs  of  presbyters  ordaining,  than  of  their  adminis- 
tering the  Lord's  supper."  He  likewise  maintains  that 
Christ  and  his  Apostles  instituted  but  two  orders  of  church 
officers — bishops  and  deacons:  "And,"  says  he,  "  if  they 
ordained  but  two,  I  think  no  one  had  ever  a  commission  to 
add  a  third,  or  to  split  one  into  two,  as  must  be  done  if  we 
separate  the  order  of  presbyters  from  the  order  of  bishops" 
The  opinion  of  Archbishop  Whately,  the  present  primate 
of  Ireland,  has  been  given  in  a  previous  lecture.  Those  who 
heard  it  will  recollect  that  it  is  entirely  in  our  favor.     Be- 


TESTIMONY    OF    EPISCOPALIANS    IN    OUR    FAVOR.         123 

sides  these  testimonies  of  eminent  Episcopalians,  (which 
might  be  extended  to  any  length,)  we  have  with  us  the  opin- 
ions of  some  eminent  Papists.  Cassander,  a  distinguished 
Catholic  divine,  in  his  book  of  Consultations,  has  the  fol- 
lowing passage  :  "  Whether  Episcopacy  is  to  be  accounted 
an  ecclesiastical  order  distinct  from  presbytery,  is  a  question 
much  debated  between  theologues  and  canonists;  but  in 
this  one  particular  all  parties  agree  :  That,  in  the  Apostles' 
days,  there  teas  no  difference  between  a  bishop  and  a  pres- 
byter :  but  afterwards,  for  the  avoiding  of  schism,  the 
bishop  was  placed  before  the  presbyter,  to  whom  the  power 
of  ordination  was  granted,  that  so  peace  might  be  continued 
in  the  church"  In  the  canon  law  we  find  the  following  con- 
clusive passage  :  "  Bishop  and  presbyter  were  the  same  in 
the  primitive  church  ;  presbyter  being  the  name  of  the  per- 
son's age,  and  bishop  of  his  office.  But,  there  being  many 
of  those  in  every  church,  they  determined  among  them- 
selves, for  the  preventing  of  schism,  that  one  should  be 
elected  by  themselves  to  be  set  over  the  rest,  and  the  person 
so  elected  they  called  bishop,  for  distinction's  sake  ;  the 
rest  were  called  presbyters ;  and,  in  process  of  time,  their 
reverence  for  these  titular  bishops  so  increased,  that  they 
began  to  obey  them,  as  children  do  a  father." 

We  come  now,  in  the  last  place,  to  the  testimony  of 
Bishop  White,  concerning  the  import  of  which  we  have 
been  so  positively  contradicted  by  our  author.  In  a  previous 
discourse,  we  asserted  that  Bishop  White  was  not  a  jure 
divino  Episcopalian  ;  or,  that  he  did  not  hold  that  Christ  and 
his  Apostles  enjoined  upon  their  followers  the  Episcopal  form 
of  government,  so  as  to  make  it  binding  upon  all  men  in 
all  ages,  in  such  a  sense,  that  without  this  form  of  govern- 
ment, there  can  be  no  true  church.  In  this  our  author  de- 
clares us  mistaken,  and  attempts  to  sustain  his  declaration 
by  quotations  from  the  writings  of  Bishop  White.  In  set- 
tling this  question,  we  will  first  give  quotations  from  the 


124        TESTIMONY    OF    EPISCOPALIANS    IN    OUR    FAVOR. 

writings  of  Bishop  White,  which  we  think  fully  sustain  us 
in  our  opinion  of  his  views,  and  then  notice  the  quotations 
of  our  author. 

From  a  pamphlet  published  by  Bishop  White  in 
Philadelphia  in  1782,  entitled,  "  The  case  of  the  Episcopal 
Church  in  the  United  States  considered,"  we  take  the  fol- 
lowing extracts  :  "  In  the  early  ages  of  the  church,  it  was 
customary  to  debate  and  determine  in  a  general  concourse 
of  all  Christians  in  the  same  city  :  among  whom  the  bishop 
was  no  more  than  president"  Again  :  "  This  is  founded 
upon  the  presumption,  that  the  worship  of  God  and  the 
reformation  of  the  people  are  the  principal  objects  of  ec- 
clesiastical discipline;  if  so,  to  relinquish  them  from  a 
scrupulous  adherence  to  Episcopacy ,  is  sacrificing  the  sub- 
stance to  the  ceremony  "  Again  :  "  Are  the  acknowledged 
ordinances  of  Christ's  holy  religion  to  be  suspended  for 
years,  out  of  delicacy  to  a  disputed  point,  and  that  relating 
only  to  externals  ?"  After  laying  down,  as  he  says  "  con- 
cisely, but  as  is  believed  impartially,"  the  doctrine  of 
Apostolic  succession,  he  asks  :  "  Can  any  reasonable  rule 
of  construction  make  this  amount  to  more  than  ancient 
Apostolic  practice  ?  That  the  Apostles  employed  any  par- 
ticular form,  affords  a  presumption  of  its  being  the  best,  all 
circumstances  at  that  time  considered ;  but  to  make  it 
unalterably  binding,  it  must  be  shown  enjoined  in  positive 
precept"  He  quotes  with  approbation  Bishop  Hoadley, 
who  denies  "the  divine  appointment  of  three  orders." 
Now  add  to  these  the  quotation  made  from  this  paper  in  a 
previous  lecture,  and  not  a  doubt  can  remain  in  any  un- 
prejudiced mind  as  to  what  were  the  opinions  of  Bishop 
White  upon  this  subject.  This  quotation  runs  as  follows  : 
"Now,  if  even  those  who  hold  Episcopacy  to  be  of  divine 
right  conceive  the  obligation  of  it  not  to  be  binding  when 
that  idea  would  be  destructive  of  public  worship ;  much 
more  must  they  think  so,  who  indeed  venerate  and  prefer 


TESTIMONY    OP    EPISCOPALIANS    IN    OUR    FAVOR.         125 

that  form  as  the  most  ancient  and  eligible,  but  without  any 
idea  of  divine  right  in  the  case.  This  the  author  believes 
to  be  the  sentiment  of  the  great  body  of  Episcopalians  in 
America ;  in  which  respect  they  have  in  their  favor,  un- 
questionably, the  sense  of  the  church  of  England ;  and,  as 
he  believes,  the  opinions  of  her  most  distinguished  prelates 
for  piety,  learning,  and  abilities."  What  could  be  more 
conclusive  than  these  quotations,  to  show,  not  only  what 
was  the  generally  received  opinion  of  the  Episcopal  church 
at  that  time,  but  also  that  Bishop  White  did  not  believe 
in  the  divine  right  of  Episcopacy  ?  In  an  Episcopal  charge 
of  Bishop  White's,  delivered  in  1834,  he  says :  "  There  is 
not  perceived  the  necessity  of  carrying  it  (the  Episcopal 
system)  to  the  extreme  of  denouncing  all  communions 
destitute  of  Episcopacy,  as  departing  from  the  essentials  of 
the  Christian  faith,  and  as  aliens  from  the  covenants  of 
promise."  In  a  letter  to  Bishop  Hobart,  dated  Dec.  1830, 
he  says:  "  In  regard  to  Episcopacy,  I  think  that  it  should  be 
sustained  as  the  government  of  the  church  from  the  time 
of  the  Apostles ;  but  without  criminating  the  ministry  of 
other  churches,  as  is  the  case  with  the  church  of  England." 
To  this  array  of  testimony,  gathered  from  the  writings  of 
Bishop  White,  our  author,  in  his  second  anonymous  pam- 
phlet, opposes  two  extracts  from  Bishop  White  on  the  cate- 
chism. The  first  is  taken  from  his  seventh  Lecture ;  "  in 
which, "  says  our  author,  "  after  a  few  preliminary  remarks, 
he  says  he  designs  'to  establish  the  three  following  positions 
concerning  the  ministry  of  the  Christian  church  : 

"  '  1.  It  is  of  divine  institution. 

"  '  2.  In  every  local  church,  it  is,  of  right,  independent 
of  all  foreign  authority  and  jurisdiction. 

"  c  3.  As  instituted  by  Jesus  Christ  and  his  Apostles,  it 
includes  the  three  orders  of  bishops,  priests,  and  deacons/  " 
Every  individual  must  perceive  that  the  two  first  propo- 
sitions have  nothing  to  do  with   the  present  subject.     We 

6 


126       TESTIMONY    OF    EPISCOPALIANS    IN    OUR    FAVOR. 

believe  as  firmly  as  does  Bishop  White,  or  any  other  dio- 
cesan bishop,  that  the  gospel  ministry  is  of  divine  institution. 
So,  likewise,  do  we  believe  that,  in  every  local  church,  it  is,  of 
right,  independent  of  all  foreign  authority  and  jurisdiction. 
In  regard  to  the  third  proposition,  we  would  say  that  we 
never  denied  but  that  Bishop  White  believed  the  three 
orders  of  the  ministry  to  be  of  Apostolic  institution.  But 
he  makes  a  distinction  between  '  Apostolic  institution '  and 
an  'Apostolic  appointment  J  in  such  a  sense  as  to  make 
these  separate  orders  binding  upon  the  church  in  all  times 
and  under  all  circumstances,  so  that  without  them  all  it 
becomes  no  church.  In  the  pamphlet  above  referred  to, 
after  unfolding  what  he  considered  the  true  doctrine  of 
Apostolic  succession,  he  asks,  as  stated  above,  "  Can  any 
reasonable  rule  of  construction  make  this  amount  to  more 
than  ancient  and  Apostolic  practice?  That  the  Apostles 
employed  any  particular  form,  affords  a  presumption  of  its 
being  the  best,  all  circumstances  at  that  time  considered  : 
but,  to  make  it  unalterably  binding,  it  must  be  shown  to  be 
enjoined  in  positive  precept"  So  that  our  author,  if  he 
would  prove  that  Bishop  White  held  that  the  three  orders  of 
the  ministry  were  jure  divino,  in  such  a  sense  as  to  be  unal- 
terably binding,  must  show,  not  only^that  he  held  them  to 
have  been  "  instituted  by  Christ  and  his  Apostles,"  but 
also  to  have  been  enjoined,  in  " positive  precept,"  upon 
the  church.  This  we  believe  he  cannot  do.  And  these 
remarks  entirely  do  away  the  force  of  his  second  quotation, 
which  consists  of  a  part  of  a  sentence,  as  follows  :  "  While 
we  contend  for  this  order,  on  the  ground  of  divine  institu- 
tion," &<c.  Bishop  White  did  contend  for  the  order  of 
bishops  on  the  ground  of  divine  institution,  but  he  never 
pretended  that  this  order  was  "  enjoined"  in  positive  precept, 
and  therefore  "  unalterably  binding"  Concerning  deacons, 
we  know  Bishop  White  held  that  they  were  not  appointed 
fay  the  Apostles  to  preach  :   for,  in  a  letter  to  Bishop  Hobart, 


TESTIMONY    OF    EPISCOPALIANS    IN    OUR    FAVOR.         127 

to  which  reference  has  already  been  made,  he  thus  expresses 
himself:  "  But  can  it  be  imagined  that  an  order  instituted 
for  the  purpose  of  serving  tables  should,  in  the  very  infancy 
of  its  existence,  have  the  office  of  the  higher  order  of  the 
ministry  committed  to  them  ?  I  do  not  deny,  either  the 
right  or  the  prudence  of  allowing,  what  has  been  subse- 
quently allowed,  to  this  lowest  order  of  the  clergy.  All  I 
contend  for  is,  that,  at  the  first  institution  of  the  order, 
there  could  have  been  no  difference  between  them  and  lay- 
men in  regard  to  the  preaching  of  the  word  and  the  admin- 
istering of  the  sacraments."  Here  we  find  Bishop  White, 
in  a  letter  to  Bishop  Hobart,  giving  it  as  his  opinion  that 
deacons,  under  the  Apostolic  appointment,  had  no  more 
power  to  preach  and  baptize  than  laymen.  After  this  full 
expose  of  Bishop  White's  opinions  upon  the  subject  under 
discussion,  as  drawn  from  his  published  writings,  if  any 
individual  is  still  of  the  belief  that  he  was  a  jure  divino  ex- 
elusive  Episcopalian,  he  is  welcome  to  all  the  consolation  he 
can  derive  from  such  an  opinion. 

In  conclusion,  we  remark  that,  whether  we  appeal  to  the 
fathers,  or  to  bishops,  and  doctors,  and  divinity  professors 
in  the  Episcopal  church,  we  find  an  overwhelming  amount 
of  testimony  in  our  favor.  We  are  entirely  willing  to  form 
our  opinion  of  Episcopacy  from  the  concessions  of  eminent 
Episcopalians.  We  will  judge  them  out  of  their  own  mouths, 
and  are  sure  that  the  judgment  will  be  in  favor  of  clerical 
parity. 


LECTURE    VIII. 


THE  RISE  OF  PRELACY. 

2  Thess.  ii.  7,  8. — "  For  the  mystery  of  iniquity  doth  already 
work  :  only,  he  who  now  letteth,  will  let,  until  he  be  taken  out  of 
the  way.  And  then  shall  that  Wicked  be  revealed,  whom  the  Lord 
shall  consume  with  the  spirit  of  his  mouth,  and  shall  destroy  with 
the  brightness  of  his  coming." 

It  would  seem,  from  this  passage  and  the  preceding  con- 
text, that  some  of  the  members  of  the  Thessalonian  church 
were  in  danger  of  imbibing  the  false  and  injurious  senti- 
ment that  the  second  coming  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  was 
at  hand.  Against  such  an  opinion  the  Apostle  warns  them, 
and  foretells  that,  before  Christ  should  come,  there  would 
be  a  general  defection  in  the  church,  and  that  man  of 
sin  and  son  of  perdition  would  be  revealed.  He  declares 
that,  even  at  that  early  period,  he  perceived  a  spirit  at  work 
in  the  church  which  he  terms,  "  the  mystery  of  iniquity ;" 
and  which  would  immediately  result  in  the  introduction  of 
"  that  wicked  one,"  were  it  not  for  a  certain  great  and  pro- 
minent obstacle  which  prevented  ;  but  that,  when  that  ob- 
stacle should  be  removed,  he  should  be  revealed.  It  is 
agreed  by  our  best  commentators  that  the  man  of  sin  here 
spoken  of  is  the  Papal  power  ;  that  the  mystery  of  iniquity , 
spoken  of  by  the  Apostle  as  tending  to  a  priestly  domination 
which  would  finally  result  in  the  unlimited  power  of  the 
universal  bishop,  was  that  lofty  ambition  and  thirst  for 
power  which  had  already  made  its  appearance  among  the 
members  of  the  infant  New  Testament  church.     This  was 


THE    RISE    OF    PRELACY.  129 

the  very  spirit  which  led  the  Apostles  to  contend  among 
themselves  which  should  be  the  greatest,  and  it  was  this 
spirit  which  divided  the  churches  into  different  parties, 
claiming  adherence  to  differen  teminent  Christian  teachers. 
Some  said,  I  am  of  Paul;  others,  I  am  of  Apollos  ;  others 
still,  I  am  of  Christ.  This  spirit  the  Apostle  had  occasion 
to  rebuke  most  severely ;  but,  with  all  his  efforts,  he  found 
it  impossible  to  eradicate  it  from  the  churches,  and  he  had 
sufficient  foresight  to  perceive,  that,  whenever  the  impedi- 
ment interposed  by  the  Roman  empire  was  removed  ; 
whenever  the  church  should  cease  to  be  persecuted  and 
downtrodden  by  a  pagan  secular  despotism,  this  ambitious, 
grasping  spirit  would  unfold  itself  to  such  an  extent  that  the 
clergy  would  become  spiritual  and  temporal  princes  ;  and 
finally,  that  there  would  be  established  a  universal  and 
absolute  church  and  state  despotism,  which  should  lodge 
all  power  with  one  individual.  The  correctness  of  this  pre- 
diction was  most  fully  sustained  by  the  after  history  of  the 
Church. 

The  early  churches,  as  they  were  instituted  by  the  Apos- 
tles, were  exceedingly  simple  and  unostentatious  in  their 
form  of  government.  There  were  ordained  in  every  church 
bishops  and  deacons.  These  primitive  bishops  were  simple 
elders  or  presbyters,  who  had  the  instruction  and  govern- 
ment of  the  church  committed  to  them.  The  deacons  were 
mere  servants  of  tables ;  they  were  appointed  for  no  other 
purpose  than  to  care  for  the  poor  and  attend  to  the  temporals 
of  the  church.  The  bench  of  elders  was  divided  into  two 
classes  ;  those  who  preached  as  well  as  ruled,  and  those 
who  gave  themselves  entirely  to  ruling.  These  elders  were 
of  the  same  order,  vested  with  the  same  authority,  and  acted 
as  co-presbyters  or  bishops  in  the  same  church.  They 
were  sometimes  called  elders  or  presbyters,  and  sometimes 
bishops.  Those  terms  were,  at  that  early  period,  applied 
to  the  same  persons,  and  used  to  designate  the  same  office. 


130 


THE    RISE    OF    PRELACY. 


The  one  referring  to  their  age  or  influence,  and  the  other 
to  their  duties  as  overseers  in  the  church.  The  church  at 
this  period,  as  Jerome  and  other  fathers  declare,  "  was 
governed  by  the  common  council  of  presbyters."  When 
these  presbyters  came  together  for  the  transaction  of  busi- 
ness, it  became  necessary  that  they  should  have  a  moderator 
or  president ;  and  they  probably  appointed  one  of  the  oldest 
and  most  influential  of  their  number  to  act  in  that  capacity. 
This  appointment  was  undoubtedly  first  made  as  often  as 
they  convened,  the  presbytery  selecting  different  persons  at 
different  times  to  act  as  their  president.  But  it  was  soon 
found  more  convenient  to  elect  their  presiding  officer  for  a 
longer  period ;  and  they  finally  concluded  to  make  their 
most  venerated  presbyter  moderator  for  life.  But  this  pri- 
ority or  presidentship  only  existed  during  the  continuance 
of  the  meeting.  When  they  adjourned  or  dissolved  the 
president  was,  in  no  sense,  above  his  co-presbyters.  Thus 
the  churches  were  governed  for  many  years  ;  but,  in  pro- 
cess of  time,  emulation  and  strife  arose  among  the  presby- 
ters— each  one  endeavoring  to  gain  an  ascendency  over 
the  rest,  and  attempting  to  draw  off  those  members  of  the 
church  who,  owing  to  circumstances,  were  particularly 
attached  to  them,  into  separate  parties.  To  allay  this  diffi- 
culty and  heal  these  divisions,  it  was  concluded  to  take  the 
most  influential  and  tried  presbyter,  and  make  him  the  sole 
pastor  of  the  church,  with  the  title  of  bishop  or  overseer, 
who  was  to  administer  the  ordinances,  and,  in  connection 
with  his  presbytery,  the  government  of  the  church.  This 
is  exactly  the  history,  as  given  by  Jerome,  of  the  origin  of 
parochial  bishops  :  and  these  are  the  only  bishops  known  in 
the  church  for  the  first  250  or  300  years.  Jerome  says  : 
"  Before  there  were,  by  the  devil's  instinct,  parties  in  reli- 
gion, and  it  was  said  among  the  people,  I  am  of  Paul,  I  of 
Apollos,  and  I  of  Cephas,  the  churches  were  governed  by 
the  common  council  of  presbyters.     But  afterwards,  when 


THE    RISE    OF    PRELACY.  131 

every  one  thought  that  those  whom  he  baptized  were  rather 
his  than  Christ's,  it  was  determined  through  the  whole  world, 
that  one  of  the  presbyters  should  be  set  above  the  rest,  to 
whom  all  care  of  the  churches  should  belong,  that  the  seeds 
of  schism  might  be  taken  away."  These  bishops  or  pas- 
tors were  appointed  over  every  particular  church ;  so  that 
they  were  parish  ministers  instead  of  diocesans.  This  has 
been  abundantly  shown  in  previous  lectures  ;  but  perhaps  it 
may  be  well,  in  this  place,  to  add  a  few  facts  which  go  far- 
ther to  illustrate  this  point. 

The  first  that  we  mention  is,  that,  as  late  as  the  fourth 
century,  the  charge  of  a  bishop,  was  called  a  parish,  and 
not  a  diocese.*  Bishop  Hobart,  in  his  "  Apology  for  Aposto- 
lic orders  and  its  advocates,"   admits  (page  121)  that,   "  in 


*  It  is  a  fact  worthy  of  notice,  that  the  word  Diocese  was  first  used 
by  Constantine,  to  designate  the  larger  civil  divisions  of  the  Roman 
Empire  :  it  was  borrowed  by  the  church  from  the  state,  as  late  as 
the  fourth  century: 

Lawrence  Echard,  Archdeacon  of  Lincoln,  an  Episcopalian  u  dyed 
in  the  wool,"  in  his  Roman  History,  (Vol.  II.  b.  2,  c.  7,)  speaking  of 
Constantine,  says  :  "  He  also  new-modelled  the  empire,  dividing  it 
into  four  quarters,  over  which  were  four  principal  governors,  called 
Prastorian  Praefects.     These  contained  fourteen  dioceses,  each  gov- 
erned by  a  Vicarius,  or  Lieutenant,  under  the  Prsefects,  residing  at 
the  metropolis  of  the  diocese ;  and  the  dioceses  were  divided  into 
120  provinces,  each  ruled  by  a  president  residing  at  the  chief  city  of 
the  province."     Gibbon,  in  his  "Decline  and  Fall  of  the  Roman 
Empire"  (i.345),  informs  us  that  "  the  civil  government  of  the  empire 
was  distributed  into  thirteen  great  Dioceses,  each  of  which  equalled 
the  just  measure  of  a  powerful  kingdom."     The  Episcopal  Bingham 
in  his  "  Christian  Antiquities,"  (B.  IX.  c.  1,  sec.  3,)   says,  that  "a 
province  was  the  cities  of  a  whole  region  subjected  to  the  authority 
of  one  chief  magistrate  ;"  a  diocese  was  still  a  larger  district,  con- 
taining several  provinces  within  the  compass  of  it.     The  division 
into  dioceses  began  only  about  the  time  of  Constantine.     In  sec.  4, 
he  adds  :  "  The  church  took  her  model,  in  setting  up  metropolitical 
and  patriarchal  power,  from  this  plan  of  the  state." 


132  THE    RISE    OF    PRELACY. 

the  early  ages  of  Christianity,  a  bishop  may  have  been 
sometimes  placed  in  a  city  or  village  where  there  was  but 
one  congregation  of  Christians."  Again  (page  122) :  "  The 
charge  of  a  bishop  is  now  called  a  diocese  and  that  of  a  pres- 
byter a  parish;  but,  to  the  fourth  century,  the  common  name 
of  an  Episcopal  diocese  was  naooiMcx. — answering  nearly  to 
the  English  word  "  parish  "  This  fact  is  so  clearly  sustained 
by  the  early  history  of  the  church,  that  even  high  church 
Episcopalians  cannot  dispute  it.  And,  pray,  how  shall  we  ac- 
count for  this  change  in  the  name  of  a  bishop's  charge,  if 
there  was  not  a  corresponding  change  in  the  thing  itself? 
The  plain  matter  of  fact  is,  that,  previous  to  the  fourth  cen- 
tury, a  bishop's  charge  was  called  a  parish  because  bishops 
themselves  were  nothing  more  than  parish  pastors.  After 
that  period,  diocesan  Episcopacy  became  rife  in  the  churches, 
and  the  name  was  changed  from  a  parish  to  a  diocese. 

The  second  fact  we  shall  mention,  as  going  to  prove 
that  the  primitive  bishops  were  parish  pastors,  having  usually 
but  one  church  under  their  spiritual  supervision,  is,  the  custom 
which  then  prevailed  for  the  flock  over  which  the  bishop  was 
to  be  placed,  to  meet  together  for  the  purpose  of  chosoing  him, 
and  the  ordination  of  the  individual  thus  elected  always  tak- 
ing place  in  their  presence.  Not  only  does  Cyprian  and 
other  ancient  fathers  bear  testimony  to  this  practice,  but 
the  historian  Eusebius,  in  giving  an  account  of  the  election 
of  Fabianus  as  bishop  in  Rome  upon  the  death  of  Anterus, 
says  :  "  All  the  people  met  together  in  the  church  to  choose 
a  successor,  proposing  several  illustrious  and  eminent  per- 
sonages as  fit  for  that  office,  whilst  no  one  so  much  as  thought 
of  Fabianus,  then  present,  till  a  dove  miraculously  came 
and  set  upon  his  head,  in  the  same  manner  as  the  Holy 
Ghost  formerly  descended  on  our  Saviour.  And  then  all 
the  people,  guided  as  it  were  by  one  divine  spirit,  cried  out 
with  one  mind  and  soul,  that  Fabianus  was  worthy  of  the 
bishoprick:  and  so,  straightway  taking  him,  they  placed  him  on 


THE    RISE    OF    PRELACV.  133 

the  Episcopal  throne. "  The  very  existence  of  such  rules  to 
govern  the  election  of  their  bishops,  proves  conclusively 
that  they  were  only  parish  pastors.  Their  adoption  would 
be  impracticable  in  a  diocese.  Hence,  they  were  entirely 
laid  aside  when  diocesan  Episcopacy  intruded  itself  into  the 
church. 

A  third  fact,  going  to  the  same  point,  is  this  :  we  are 
informed  by  early  writers  that  the  presbyters  connected  with 
a  bishop  belonged  to  the  same  congregation,  and  took  their 
seat  iciththe  bishop,  when  the  church  ivas  convened  for  public 
worship.  They  even  go  so  far  as  to  tell  us  how  they  were 
arranged  :  that  the  bishop  sat  in  the  middle  of  a  semicircu- 
lar bench,  that  the  elders  were  seated  on  either  side  of  him, 
and  that  the  deacons  stood  a  little  in  advance,  and  in  a  place 
somewhat  lower,  ready  to  discharge  their  appropriate  duties. 
In  the  Apostolic  Constitution,  Lib.  II.  c.  57,  we  find  the 
following  direction  given  with  reference  to  the  ordinary  ser- 
vices of  the  sanctuary.  "  When  thou,  O  Bishop,  hast  called 
together  the  church  of  God,  like  the  master  of  a  ship  require 
them  to  assemble  often  with  all  prudence  and  regularity  of 
discipline.  Command  the  deacons,  as  so  many  mariners, 
that  they  appoint  convenient  places  for  all  the  brethren,  as 
for  so  many  passengers,  with  all  care  and  decency.  And 
first,  let  the  house  of  worship  be  oblong,  turned  toward 
the  east,  and  like  a  ship.  In  the  middle  place  let  the  bish- 
op's seat  be,  and  on  both  sides  of  him  let  the  presbyters  sit; 
but  let  the  deacons  stand  ready  for  service,  lightly  clothed, 
for  they  are  like  the  mariners,  and  those  that  order  the  sides 
of  the  ship.  By  their  care  let  the  laymen  sit  quietly  and  or- 
derly in  one  part  of  the  church,  and  the  women  also  by 
themselves,  abstaining  from  talking.  Let  the  reader,  stand- 
ing in  the  middle  of  the  same  high  place,  read  the  books  of 
Moses,  &/C.  The  reading  being  finished,  let  another  sing 
the  hymns  of  David.  Then  let  our  acts  and  epistles  be  re- 
cited.     After  these  things,  let  the  presbyters  exhort  the 


134  THE    RISE    OF    PRELACY. 

people ;  and  last  of  all  the  bishop,  who  is  like  the  master  of 
a  ship.  Let  the  door-keepers  stand  at  the  church  doors, 
where  the  men  enter,  and  the  deaconesses  where  the  women 
enter.  If  any  be  found  sitting  out  of  his  own  place,  let  the 
deacons  reprove  him,  and  let  him  be  conducted  to  a  proper 
place.  Let  the  deacons  take  care  that  none  whisper,  sleep, 
laugh,  nod,  &/C  After  the  catechumens  and  penitent  have 
retired,  let  the  deacons  prepare  for  the  celebration  of  the 
Eucharist,"  &c.  "No  one,"  says  Dr.  Miller,  "can  read 
these  rules  without  perceiving  that  they  relate  to  the  ordi- 
nary worship  of  Christian  assemblies,  when  convened  on  the 
Sabbath.  To  doubt  this,  is  to  fly  in  the  face  of  common 
sense.  Yet  we  find  the  presence  of  the  bishop  in  every  public 
service  sp«ken  of  as  indispensable.  Is  it  not  manifest  that 
this  bishop  could  only  have  been  pastor  of  a  single  flock  V 

The  last  fact  we  shall  mention,  going  to  show  that  the 
bishops  of  the  early  church  were  only  parish  bishops,  is  the 
great  number  of  such  bishops  found  in  small  districts  of 
country.  Eusebius  informs  us  that,  at  the  council  of  Anti- 
och,  held  in  the  year  260  concerning  Paul,  Bishop  of 
Antioch,  there  were  present  more  than  600  bishops.  In 
the  year  410,  Augustine  and  the  bishops  of  his  pro- 
vince in  Africa  held  a  conference  with  the  Donatists,  at 
which  conference  there  were  present  between  500  and  600 
bishops.  Here  then,  in  districts  of  country  not  larger  than 
some  of  our  states,  we  find  500  or  600  bishops.  Could  they 
have  been  any  thing  more  than  parish  bishops  ?  We  are  in- 
formed by  Victor  Uticensis  in  his  book,  "  De  Persecutione 
Vandalica,"  that,  from  the  part  of  Africa  in  which  the  per- 
secution took  place,  660  bishops  fled,  besides  a  great  num- 
ber that  were  murdered  or  imprisoned,  and  many  more  who 
were  tolerated.  Upon  this  fact,  Dr.  Miller  remarks  as  fol- 
lows :  "  Now,  when  it  is  recollected  that  this  persecution 
extended  only  to  a  small  portion  of  Africa,  and  that  it  was 
carried  on  by  one  denomination  of  professing  Christians 


THE    RISE    OF    PRELACY.  135 

against  another,  we  are  necessarily  led  to  conclude  that  there 
must  have  been,  in  that  section  of  Africa  alone,  at  least  two 
thousand  bishops.     Could  these  have  been  prelates,   each 
with  a  number  of  congregations  and  pastors  under  his  care  ? 
It  is  incredible.     They  could  not  have  been  more  than  or- 
dinary pastors  of  single  congregations."     Bishop  White,  in 
his  "  Case  of  the  Episcopal  Churches,  &,c,"  makes  the  follow- 
ing statement:  ."  There  having  been   an  Episcopal  power 
lodged  by  Jesus  Christ  with  his  Apostles,  and  by  them  ex- 
ercised generally  in  person,  but  sometimes  by  delegation,  as 
in  the  cases  of  Timothy  and  Titus,  the  same  was  conveyed 
by  them,  before  their  decease,  to  one  pastor  in  each  church, 
which  generally  comprehended  all  the  Christians  in  a  city 
and  a  convenient  surrounding  district."     The  learned  Field, 
in  his  celebrated  work  of  the  church,  says  :  "  The  Apostles 
of  Christ  and  their  successors  so  divided  the  people  of  God 
converted   by  their  ministry   into  particular  churches,  that 
each  city  and  the  places  near  adjoining  did  make  but  one 
church."  He  then  adds  :  "  Though  there  be  many  presbyters, 
i.  e.,  many  fatherly  guides  of  our  church,  yet  there  is  one 
among  the  rest  that  is  specially  pastor  of  the  place ;  who,  for 
distinction's  sake,  is  named  a  bishop."     We  have  some  rare 
testimony  upon  this  point  from  the  "  Tracts  for  the  Times," 
which,  as  our  author  never  has  read,  he  cannot  be  supposed 
to  know  any  thing  about.     In  Tract  No.  15,  we  find  the 
following  paragraph  :  "In  early  times,  as  is  well  known,  all 
Christians  thought  substantially  alike,  and   found  one  great 
body  all  over  the  world,  called  the  church  catholic  or  univer- 
sal.    This  great  body,  consisting  of  a  vast  number  of  sepa- 
rate churches  with  each  of  them  its  own  bishop  at  its  head," 
&c.     In  Tract  33,  we  find  the  following  statement :  "  Few 
persons,  who  have  not  expressly  examined  the  subject,  are 
aware  of  the   minuteness  of  the  dioceses  into  which  many 
parts  of  Christendom  were  divided  in  the  first  ages.     Some 
churches  in  Italy  were  more  like  our  rural  deaneries  than 


136 


THE    RISE    OF    PRELACY. 


what  we  now  consider  dioceses,  being  not  above  ten  or 
twelve  miles  in  extent ,  and  their  sees  not  above  ten  or  twelve 
miles  from  each  other.  Even  now  (or  at  least  in  Bingham's 
time)  the  kingdom  of  Naples  contains  147  sees,  of  which 
twenty  are  archbishopricks ."  It  should  be  recollected  that  the 
kingdom  of  Naples  is  scarcely  as  large  as  the  state  of 
Maine ;  and  yet  it  contains  147  sees  !  Surely  this  looks  very 
much  like  parochial  bishopricks.  We  suspect  that  if  the 
state  of  Maine  were  divided  among  147  Episcopal  bishops, 
the  difference  between  her  dioceses  and  parishes  would  be 
considered  of  little  consequence.  We  are  inclined  to  be- 
lieve that  her  dioceses  would  then  far  outnumber  her  present 
number  of  parishes. 

The  existence  of  the  above  named  facts  are  so  notori- 
ous thatt  hey  will  not  be  denied  by  any  intelligent  Episcopa- 
lian ;  and  they  certainly  go  to  establish  the  position  that,  for 
full  300  years,  nothing  more  than  parochial  episcopacy  was 
known  in  the  church.  Diocesan  Episcopacy  took  its  rise 
mainly  from  the  influence  of  metropolitan  or  city  bishops 
over  the  bishops  of  the  surrounding  villages  and  country  par- 
ishes. The  influence  of  those  numerous  councils  which 
were  held  upon  various  subjects,  by  the  early  church,  was 
greatly  to  increase  the  authority  of  the  metropolitan  bish- 
ops over  their  brethren.  We  find  that,  in  the  year  347,  a 
law  was  passed  by  the  council  of  Sardis,  against  placing 
bishops  in  small  cities  or  villages.  The  object  and  effect  of 
this  law  was  undoubtedly  to  increase  the  influence  and  au- 
thority of  those  bishops  who  resided  in  large  cities.  It  was 
not  very  strictly  adhered  to  for  some  time  ;  but  villiage  bish- 
ops went  into  disuse  by  degrees,  and  their  parishes  were 
added  to  the  charges  of  the  several  metropolitans.  Thus  it 
was  that  diocesan  episcopacy  originated  in  the  church  of 
God.  It  was  not  Apostolical  in  its  origin,  but  grew  out  of 
the  pride  and  ambition  of  an  unsanctified  priesthood.  Even  in 
the  last  half  of  the  third  century,  the  bishops  began  to  usurp 


THE    RISE    OF    PRELACY. 


137 


to  themselves  great  authority,  and  to  trample  upon  the 
rights  of  the  presbyters  and  churches.  Constantine,  who 
came  to  the  imperial  throne  in  the  fourth  century,  greatly 
aided  these  usurpations,  and  conferred  upon  the  whole  eccle- 
siastical system  a  degree  of  splendor,  to  which  until  then 
it  had  been  an  entire  stranger.  "  He  assumed  unto  himself 
the  right  of  calling  general  councils,  of  presiding  in  them, 
of  determining  controversies,  and  of  fixing  the  bounds  of  ec- 
clesiastical provinces.  He  formed  the  prelatical  govern- 
ment, after  the  imperial  model,  into  great  prefectures  ;  in 
which  arrangement,  a  certain  pre-eminence  was  conferred  on 
the  bishops  of  Rome,  Antioch,  Alexandria,  and  Constantino- 
ple; the  first  rank  being  always  reserved  for  the  bishop  of 
Rome,  who  succeeded  in  gradually  extending  his  usurpa- 
tions, until  he  was  finally  confirmed  in  it  by  an  imperial  de- 
cree." We  are  sustained  in  this  brief  outline  of  the  rise  of 
Episcopacy  and  its  papal  result  by  Mosheim, Gibbon,  the  Epis- 
copal Haweis,  and  other  eminent  historians.  In  view  of  these 
indisputable  facts,  that  eminent  Episcopal  divine,  professor 
Whittaker,  remarks,  upon  the  subject  of  the  introduction  of 
prelacy  into  the  church,  as  a  remedy  against  schism,  that 
"  the  remedy  was  almost  worse  than  the  disease ;  for,  as  at 
first,  one  presbyter  was  set  over  the  rest  and  made  bishop, 
so,  afterwards,  one  bishop  was  set  over  the  other  bishops. 
Thus  that  custom  begot  the  pope  and  his  monarchy,  and 
brought  them,  by  little  and  little,  into  the  church.' '  How 
exactly  the  history  of  the  church,  in  the  rise  and  progress  of 
prelacy,  unfolds  the  fulfilment  of  the  prediction  of  St.  Paul 
which  is  contained  in  our  text :  "  For  the  mystery  of  iniquity 
doth  already  work  :  only  he  who  now  letteth,  will  let,  until  he 
be  taken  out  of  the  way.  And  then  shall  that  Wicked  be 
revealed,  whom  the  Lord  shall  consume  with  the  spirit  of  his 
mouth,  and  shall  destroy  with  the  brightness  of  his  coming." 
When  Constantine  came  to  the  throne,  the  Roman  govern- 
ment, instead  of  impeding  the  progress  of  prelatical  power, 


138  THE    RISE    OF    PRELACY. 

became  its  most  powerful  auxiliary  ;  and  very  soon  "  the 
man  of  sin,  the  son  of  perdition,  was  revealed,"  who  opposeth 
and  exalteth  himself  above  all  that  is  called  God  or  that  is 
worshipped ;  so  that  he,  as  God,  sitteth  in  the  temple  of  God, 
showing  himself  that  he  is  God."  We  perceive,  from  these 
statements,  that  the  prelacy  has  once  produced  the  papacy. 
And  we  should  ever  recollect  that  human  nature  is  the  same 
in  every  age,  and  in  every  clime ;  that,  "  as  face  answereth 
to  face  in  water,  so  the  heart  of  man  to  man ;"  that  like 
causes,  under  like  circumstances,  produce  like  effects  What 
Christian  or  patriot,  with  his  mind  enlightened  as  to  the  past, 
would  be  willing  to  nourish  such  a  system  in  the  heart  of 
Republicanism  and  of  the  American  church?  "  Who  is 
wise?  he  shall  understand  these  things;  prudent?  and  he 
shall  know  them." 


LECTURE    IX. 


THE  CLAIMS  TO  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION  EXAMINED. 

John  viii.  41. — "  They  answered  and  said  unto  him,  Abraham  is 
our  father.  Jesus  saith  unto  them,  If  ye  were  Abraham's  children, 
ye  would  do  the  works  of  Abraham." 

The  Jews  in  the  time  of  Christ  had  lost  the  spirit  and 
power  of  their  religion,  the  form  only  remained.  The 
Saviour  endeavored  to  convince  them  that  their  confidence  in 
ceremonial  observances,  without  piety  of  heart  and  life, 
would  prove  a  fatal  delusion.  But  they  effectually  repelled 
his  benevolent  instructions  and  faithful  reproofs,  by  answer- 
ing, with  characteristic  complacency,  "  Abraham  is  our 
father;"  i.  e.,  "We  belong  to  the  only  true  church,  are 
descendants  in  a  direct  line  from  father  Abraham ;  and  this 
fact  is  alone  sufficient  to  entitle  us  to  the  sole  benefit  of 
those  '  covenanted  mercies  '  which  God  has  made  over  to 
that  patriarch." 

There  is  such  a  marked  resemblance  between  this  method 
of  reasoning  and  that  adopted  by  high  churchmen,  in  regard 
to  their  "  true  succession,"  as  they  term  it,  that  we  are  al- 
most inclined  to  believe  it  is  borrowed  from  the  ancient 
Jews. 

The  subject  which  claims  our  attention  in  the  present 
lecture  is  this  so  called  "  Apostolical  succession  ;"  that  is, 
the  pretended  succession  of  bishops  in  a  direct  and  unbroken 
line  from  the  college  of  Apostles.  This  the  Episcopal 
church  profess  to  possess  ;  and  to  possess  it  to  the  exclusion 
of  all  other  Protestant  denominations.    They  pretend  to  give 


140  THE  CLAIMS  TO  APOSTOLICAL 

us  a  list  of  bishops  which  run  directly  through  that  church 
which  is  called  "  the  mother  of  harlots/'  up  to  the  Apostles 
Peter  and  Paul.  We  intend  at  the  present  time  to  examine 
somewhat  this  wonderful  line  of  succession,  so  entire  and 
unbroken  in  all  its  parts,  and  see  upon  what  "  indisputable 
evidence  it  is  founded."  In  entering  upon  this  examination, 
the  hearer  must  keep  in  mind  the  importance  which  the 
"  only  true  church  "  attaches  to  this  part  of  the  subject. 
Unless  a  clergyman  can  trace  his  ordination  through  a  line 
of  prelates  directly  to  the  Apostles,  he  has  no  right  to  preach, 
and  the  ordinances  he  administers  are  null  and  void.  Those 
who  call  themselves  churches,  yet  are  without  such  a  line 
of  prelates,  are,  in  fact,  no  churches  ;  and  even  to  call  their 
places  of  public  worship  churches  is  a  misnomer.  They 
are  nothing  but  "  houses."  It  is  worthy  of  remark,  that 
Bishop  Delancy,  the  present  bishop  of  the  diocese  of 
Western  New  York,  in  his  report  to  the  recent  Episcopal 
convention  held  at  Auburn,  of  his  yearly  tour  through  the 
diocese,  invariably  calls  Episcopal  meeting-houses  "  church- 
es ;"  and  those  of  other  denominations,  where,  out  of  polite- 
ness, he  was  admitted  to  preach,  simply  "  houses."  Thus 
he  preached  in  the  Episcopal  churches  of  Lockport,  but  at 
Niagara  Falls  he  preached  in  the  Presbyterian  house.  And 
why  all  this  arrogance  ?  Simply  because  Episcopacy  pre- 
tends to  possess  the  ministerial  succession,  to  the  exclusion 
of  other  denominations:  Prelatical  succession  is  considered 
by  them  of  such  overshadowing  importance,  that,  to  be 
without  it,  unchurches  even  the  brick  and  mortar  and 
timber  of  a  meeting-house.  The  very  beams  from  the  walls 
of  our  sanctuaries  must  cry  out  for  a  prelate,  and  be  conse- 
crated by  an  Episcopal  bishop,  or  they  have  no  right  to  be 
called  churches.  Certainly,  then,  a  succession  which  is  of 
such  importance  as  to  reach  to  the  very  materials  of  a 
church  edifice,  should  be  founded  upon  very  clear  and 
indisputable    historic    testimony.       It  should  likewise  be 


SUCCESSION    EXAMINED.  141 

borne  in  mind,  that  the  strength  of  this  successive  chain  is 
only  as  the  strength  of  its  weakest  link ;  for,  if  there  be  a 
single  link  deficient  or  wanting,  it  vitiates  the  whole  suc- 
ceeding part  of  this  chain.  By  examining  the  appendix  to 
the  "  Enquiry  into  the  Ministerial  Commission/'  the  hearer 
will  find  a  catalogue  of  successive  bishops  from  Peter  and 
Paul  to  Bishop  White.  In  this  catalogue,  Peter  is  put  down 
as  the  head  of  the  Jewish,  and  Paul  as  the  head  of  the 
Gentile  Christian  church  at  Rome.  Linus  and  Cletus  are 
said  to  be  Paul's  successors,  and  Clement  the  successor  of 
Peter.  We  are  likewise  told  that  Clement  survived  Cletus, 
and  united  both  churches  in  one.  Where  our  author 
obtained  so  much  information  we  are  entirely  uninformed ; 
certain  we  are  that  there  is  no  sufficient  testimony  from 
Scripture,  or  any  other  source,  that  Paul  was  ever  bishop  of 
the  Gentile  church  at  Rome.  We  are  informed  in  the  Acts 
of  the  Apostles  that  Paul  was  carried  a  prisoner  to  Rome, 
and  that,  after  his  arrival,  he  was  suffered  to  preach  to  the 
inhabitants  of  that  city  in  his  own  hired  house,  for  the  space 
of  two  years;  but  certainly  there  is  no  evidence  that  he  was 
the  settled  bishop  of  that  church  ;  on  the  contrary,  there  is 
every  thing  to  contradict  it.  All  the  testimony  which  is  at 
all  relied  upon  by  the  learned,  goes  to  make  Linus  and 
Cletus  Peter's  successors  in  the  same  sense  with  Clement. 
I  know  that  we  are  told  by  our  author,  that  "  the  author  of 
the  Apostolic  Constitutions  makes  Linus  to  have  been 
ordained  bishop  of  Rome  by  St.  Paul."  Will  our  author  be 
kind  enough  to  inform  us  who  was  the  author  of  the 
Apostolic  Constitutions,  and  when  they  were  written  ?  They 
are  admitted  to  have  been  a  forgery ;  and  while,  like  any 
other  work  of  fiction,  they  may  be  evidence  of  the  customs 
of  the  times  in  which  they  were  written,  it  would  be  the 
height  of  absurdity  to  rely  upon  them  as  authentic  testi- 
mony of  a  historical  fact.  The  opinion  that  Linus  and 
Cletus  succeeded  Paul  to  the  exclusion  of  Peter  in  the 


142  THE  CLAIMS  TO  APOSTOLICAL 

bishoprick  of  Rome,  is  comparatively  of  recent  date,  and 
was  invented  to  reconcile,  if  possible,  the  conflicting  testi- 
mony of  the  early  fathers  upon  this  subject.  We  shall  treat 
it  as  it  deserves  to  be  treated,  as  a  mere  dream  of  the  imagi- 
nation, and  dismiss  it  without  further  remark. 

The  first  question  then  to  be  settled  in  our  present  in- 
quiry is,  Was  Peter  ever  bishop  of  Rome?  We  have  no 
testimony  from  Scripture  that  Peter  ever  saw  Rome ;  and 
all  the  testimony  we  have  upon  the  subject  in  history,  is 
founded  upon  the  most  vague  and  uncertain  tradition.  But, 
supposing  him  to  have  visited  Rome,  and  to  have  resided 
there  for  a  season,  we  have  not  the  least  shadow  of  evidence 
that  he  ever  was  the  fixed  bishop  of  that  church.  Bishop 
White,  in  a  dissertation  upon  this  subject,  says  :  "  It  is  pro- 
posed to  prove,  in  this  section,  that  St.  Peter  was  never  pro- 
perly bishop  of  the  church  of  Rome  ;  that  some  occasional 
expressions  of  the  early  fathers,  which  seem  to  favor  the 
opinion  here  denied,  admit  of  a  different  interpretation,"  &c. 
But  suppose,  for  the  sake  of  argument,  we  admit  Peter  to 
have  been  the  true  and  proper  bishop  of  Rome ;  pray,  who 
was  his  successor  ?  In  answering  this  question,  the  early 
fathers  contradict  each  other,  and  make  perfect  confusion, 
showing  that  they  knew  nothing  with  certainty  about  it. 
Irenseus  is  the  earliest  father  produced  by  our  opponents  to 
testify  upon  this  subject.  He  says  Linus  was  the  first  bishop 
of  Rome,  without  saying  a  word  as  to  when  or  by  whom 
he  was  constituted  such  a  bishop.  When  asked  how  he 
knows  this  to  be  a  fact?  he  answers,  "  it  is  held  as  a  tradi- 
tion from  the  Apostles;"  so  that  all  the  knowledge  he  has  on 
the  subject,  is  that  which  he  has  received  from  tradition. 
Eusebius  agrees  with  Irenseus  in  testifying  that  Linus  was 
first  bishop  of  Rome  next  to  the  Apostles.  He  says,  "  after  the 
martyrdom  of  Paul  and  Peter,  Linus  was  the  first  who  received 
the  episcopate  at  Rome."  Here  mark — Eusebius,  the  favorite 
historian  of  high  church  Episcopalians,  declares  that  Linus 


SUCCESSION    EXAMINED.  143 

did  not  receive  the  episcopate  until  after  the  martyrdom  of 
Paul  and  Peter.  Certainly,  then,  he  could  not  have  received 
it  from  either  of  these  Apostles ;  for  surely  this  livin  genergy 
could  not  proceed  from  dead  hands.  From  whom  then  did 
Linus  receive  the  episcopate  1  Will  high  churchmen  answer 
this  question  1  But,  pray,  how  and  what  does  Eusebius 
know  about  these  early  bishops?  He  shall  answer  for  him- 
self: he  says,  "  But  how  many  and  which  of  these,  actuated 
by  a  genuine  zeal,  were  judged  suitable  to  feed  the  churches 
established  by  these  Apostles,  it  is  not  easy  to  show  further 
than  may  be  gathered  from  the  writings  of  Paul.,J  Just  so 
we  think.  All  on  this  subject  that  Eusebius  could  rely 
upon  as  correct,  were  such  facts  as  he  could  derive  from  the 
sacred  writings.  The  rest  was  dark  and  ambiguous  tradi- 
tion. He  says  expressly,  that,  in  collecting  the  materials  of 
his  history,  "  he  was  obliged  to  rely  much  on  tradition,  and 
that  he  could  trace  no  footsteps  of  those  going  before  him, 
only  a  few  narratives."  A  very  safe  testimony  this,  upon 
which  to  rest  the  certainty  of  a  succession  which  is  necessary 
to  the  very  existence  of  the  church  of  God  !  We  have  seen 
that  Irenseus  and  Eusebius  inform  us  that  Linus  was  the 
first  bishop  of  Rome  next  to  the  Apostles.  Jerome  and  Au- 
gustine are  of  the  same  opinion  ;  but  Tertullian,  Rufinus, 
and  Epiphanius,  say  Clement  succeeded  Peter.  Jerome  says, 
"  Most  of  the  Latin  authors  supposed  the  order  to  be  Clem- 
ent the  successor  of  Peter."  Here,  then,  at  the  first  link  in 
this  wonderful  chain,  so  lucidly  defined  by  high  churchmen, 
there  is  zgross  confusion  and  contradiction,  without  so  much 
as  the  shadow  of  certainty.  Bishop  Taylor  says,  "  The  fathers 
were  infinitely  deceived  in  their  account  and  enumeration  of 
traditions."  Cabassute,  the  distinguished  papal  historian  of 
the  councils,  says,  "  It  is  a  very  doubtful  question  concern- 
ing Linus,  Cletus,  and  Clemens,  which  of  them  succeeded 
Peter."  Dr.  Comber  says,  "  Upon  the  whole  matter  there 
is  no  certainty  who  was  bishop  of  Rome  next  to  the  Apostles, 


144  THE  CLAIMS  TO  APOSTOLICAL 

and  therefore  Romanists  build  upon  an  ill  bottom  when  they 
lay  so  great  weight  upon  their  personal  succession."  Not 
being  able  to  ascertain  with  the  least  degree  of  certainty  who 
was  the  second  bishop  of  Rome,  let  us  see  whether  we  can 
meet  with  any  better  success  in  inquiring  after  the  third. 
We  find,  in  the  catalogues  of  papists,  and  high  churchmen, 
the  name  of  Cletus  put  down  as  filling  this  place.  But,  pray, 
who  was  Cletus?  Hear  again  the  Episcopal  Dr.  Comber: 
"  The  like  blunder  there  is  about  the  next  Pope — the  fabu- 
lous pontifical  makes  Cletus  succeed  Linus,  and  gives  us  sev- 
eral lives  of  Cletus  and  Anacletus,  making  them  of  several 
nations,  and  to  have  been  popes  at  different  times,  putting 
Clement  between  them.  Yet  the  aforesaid  learned  Bishop 
of  Chester  (Pearson)  proves  that  these  were  only  two  names 
for  the  same  person ;  but  the  notes  attempt  to  justify  the 
forged  pontifical  by  impudently  affirming  that  Ignatius  (An- 
acletus's  cotemporary),  Irengeus,Eusebius,  St.  Augustine,  and 
Optatus,  were  all  mistaken  or  all  wronged  by  their  transcrib- 
ers, who  leave  out  Cletus.  But  every  candid  reader  will 
rather  believe  the  mistake  to  be  in  the  pontifical,  (which  is  a 
mere  heap  of  errors,)  and  in  the  Roman  Martyrology  and 
Missal,  which  blindly  followed  it,  than  in  those  ancient 
and  eminent  Fathers.  And  every  one  may  see  the  folly 
of  the  Romish  church,  which  venerates  two  several  saints  on 
two  several  days,  one  of  which  never  had  a  real  being ;  for 
Cletus  is  but  the  abbreviation  for  Anacletus' s  name."  The 
hearer  may  judge  from  this  extract  how  very  certain  it  is 
who  was  the  third  bishop  of  Rome.  The  papists  and  high- 
churchmen  make  Clement  the  fourth  bishop  of  Rome.  But 
Tertullian,  Rufinus,  Epiphanius,  and  "  most  of  the  Latin  au- 
thors," inform  us  that  Clement  was  the  second  bishop,  and  the 
immediate  successor  of  St.  Peter.  Thus  we  might,  my  hear- 
ers, if  we  had  time,  trace  this  wonderful  succession  link  after 
link,  and  show  you  that  it  is  enveloped  in  the  most  glorious 
uncertainty.     And  yet  we  are  told  that,  in  order  to  have  a 


SUCCESSION    EXAMINED.  145 

right  to  preach  and  administer  ordinances,  we  must  be  able 
to  trace  our  ordination,  through  a  line  of  prelates  up  to  the 
Apostles.  We  suspect,  if  this  is  to  be  the  test,  our  lawn- 
sleeved  Diocesans  will  be  compelled  to  lay  aside  their  pon- 
tifical robes,  and  confess  that  they  have  no  authority  to  offi- 
ciate in  the  sacred  office. 

There  are  certain  well  authenticated  facts,  which  go  to 
show  still  further  the  entire  uncertainty  of  Apostolic  suc- 
cession, as  it  is  called,  in  the  church  of  Rome,  which  we 
will  briefly  state  in  this  place. 

1st.  For  several  centuries  the  popes  were  in  fact  created 
by  the  emperors,  or,  as  Bishop  Burnet  says,  "  were  made 
upon  the  emperors'  mandates;"  and  their  appointment  gave 
occasions  for  such  scenes  of  intrigue,  debauchery,  violence, 
and  bloodshed,  as  the  world  has  scarcely  witnessed  before 
or  since.  "  Nor,"  says  Bishop  Burnet,  "  did  the  emperors 
part  easily  with  this  right ;  but,  after  that,  the  Othos  and 
Henrys  kept  up  their  pretensions,  and  came  oft  to  Rome  and 
made  many  popes ;  and  though  most  of  the  popes  so  made  were 
generally  antipopes  and  schismatics,  yet  someof  them,  as  Cle- 
ment the  second,  are  put  in  the  catalogues  by  Baronius,  and 
Binnius,andbythe  late  publishers  of  the  councils,  Labberand 
Cossartius.  There  was,  indeed,  great  opposition  made  to 
this  at  Rome ;  but,  let  even  their  own  historians  be  appealed 
to,  what  a  series  of  monsters,  and  not  men,  those  popes  were  ; 
how  infamously  they  were  elected — often  by  the  harlots  of 
Rome  ;  and  how  flagitious  they  were,  we  refer  it  to  Baro- 
nius himself,  who  could  not  deny  this,  for  all  his  partiality, 
in  his  great  work."  But  let  us  hear  the  testimony  of  this 
Cardinal  Baronius  himself,  who  was  one  of  the  most  power- 
ful champions  of  the  papacy.  Speaking  of  the  commence- 
ment of  the  tenth  century,  he  exclaims,  "  O  !  what  was 
then  the  face  of  the  holy  Roman  church !  how  filthy,  when 
the  vilest  and  most  powerful  harlots  ruled  in  the  court  of 
Rome  !    by  whose   arbitrary  sway  dioceses  were   made   and 


146  THE  CLAIMS  TO  APOSTOLICAL 

unmade ;  bishops  were  consecrated ;  and,  which  is  inex- 
pressibly horrible  to  be  mentioned,  FALSE  POPES— 
THEIR  PARAMOURS— were  thrust  into  the  chair  of 
Peter,  who,  in  being  numbered  as  popes,  serve  no  purpose,  ex- 
cept to  fill  up  the  catalogue  of  the  popes  of  Rome.  For  who 
can  say  that  persons  thrust  into  the  popedom  without  any 
law,  by  harlots  of  this  sort,  were  legitimate  popes  of  Rome? 
In  these  elections,  no  mention  is  made  of  the  acts  of  the 
clergy,  either  of  their  choosing  the  pope  at  the  time  of  his 
election,  or  of  their  consent  afterward.  All  the  canons  were 
suppressed  into  silence  ;  the  voice  of  the  decrees  of  former 
pontiffs  was  not  allowed  to  be  heard.  Ancient  traditions 
were  proscribed  ;  the  customs  formerly  practised  in  electing 
the  pope,  with  the  sacred  rights  and  pristine  usages,  were  all 
extinguished.  In  this  manner,  LUST,  supported  by  secular 
power,  excited  to  frenzy  in  the  rage  for  dominion,  ruled  in 
all  things"  Here  we  perceive  that  harlots  ruled  at  the 
Court  of  St.  Peter  ;  harlots  made  and  unmade  dio- 
ceses ;  harlots  thrust  false  popes,  their  paramours, 

INTO    THE    VERY    CHAIR    OF    St.  PeTER.       And  THESE  FALSE 

popes,  thus  created,  go  to  fill  up  the  catalogues  of 
the  popes  of  Rome.  Truly,  this  is  Apostolical,  with 
a  vengeance  !  Through  such  a  source  Episcopal  prelates 
must  have  received  the  "  virus  of  ordination"  entirely  un- 
tainted, possessing  all  its  living  energies. 

2d.  The  schisms  which  so  frequently  obtained  concern- 
ing the  popedom,  is  another  evidence  of  the  very  great  un- 
certainty attending  the  succession.  There  were  frequently 
two,  three,  and  sometimes  four  claimants  to  the  popedom,  at 
the  same  time.  When  this  was  the  case,  the  church  be- 
came divided  into  parties,  which  were  arrayed  against  each 
other  ;  and  the  one  which  was  most  cunning  and  powerful,  by 
intrigue,  bribery,  and  bloodshed,  succeeded  against  the 
others.  Onuphirus  Pauvinius,  and  other  papal  historians, 
admit  that  there  were  more  than  twenty  such  schisms  pre- 


SUCCESSION    EXAMINED. 


147 


vious  to  the  fourteenth  century.  Some  of  them  continued 
for  forty  years.  Says  our  author  upon  this  point,  "  We 
sometimes,  indeed,  hear  it  urged  as  an  objection  to  tracing 
the  succession  through  Rome,  that  there  were,  at  one  time, 
two  or  more  claimants  to  the  papacy;  each  of  whom  de- 
nounced the  other  as  a  usurper.  Now,  this  objection,  at 
first  sight,  is  plausible  ;  but  a  moment's  reflection  is  suffi- 
cient to  put  it  to  flight.  For,  let  us  suppose  that  there  were 
at  the  same  time  several  individuals  claiming  to  be  pope. 
Does  this  prove  they  were  not  all  bishops  ?  It  proves 
nothing  on  this  point.  For,  in  the  first  place,  they  may 
have  been  bishops  prior  to  their  election  to  the  papacy.  If 
so,  the  matter  is  at  once  put  to  rest;  and  if  they  were  pres- 
byters, they  must  have  been  made  bishops  when  they  were 
consecrated  to  the  papacy."  Our  author  has  a  wonderful 
short-metre  way  of  putting  things  -•  to  rest."  We  think  the 
following  facts  will  somewhat  disturb  the  "  rest"  of  this 
point,  which  he  has  so  easily  disposed  of. 

1.  The  councils  of  Nice,  of  Antioch,  of  Chalcedon,  and 
other  councils,  prohibited  the  transfer  of  bishops  from  one 
bishoprick  to  another,  and  these  canons  would  be  likely  to 
prevent  those  who  were  before  bishops  from  being  elected 
to  the  bishoprick  of  Rome. 

2.  For  about  one  thousand  years  we  have  no  evidence 
that  any  individual,  already  a  bishop,  was  elected  to  the 
bishoprick  of  Rome.  During  that  period  there  had  been  a 
hundred  bishops  of  Rome,  and  thirteen  schisms  in  the  pope- 
dom. 

3.  Will  our  author  maintain  that  a  pretender  to  a 
bishoprick,  who  should  be  sustained  in  his  pretensions,  and 
consecrated  to  that  bishoprick  by  a  party,  but  who  after- 
wards should  be  put  down  as  a  usurper,  is,  nevertheless,  by 
virtue  of  his  disorderly  consecration,  a  bishop,  and  his  acts 
as  such  valid  ?  Certainly,  our  author  is  not  prepared  to  take 
such  ground ;    and    vet   he   must   assume  it  before  he  can 


148  THE  CLAIMS  TO  APOSTOLICAL 

prove  that  these  pretenders  were  consecrated  bishops,  and 
that  their  official  acts  are  valid. 

4.  It  is  according  to  the  principles  of  the  church  of 
Rome,  and,  we  believe,  of  the  American  Episcopal  church, 
that,  to  qualify  a  man  for  the  bishoprick,  he  must  previously 
have  been  ordained  priest ;  but  several  of  the  bishops  of 
Rome  were  previously  nothing  but  laymen  ;  they  never  were 
ordained  to  the  priesthood.  Now  it  is  a  question  which  we 
should  like  to  see  answered — Could  one  of  these  lay  bishops, 
who  never  was  ordained  to  the  priestly  office,  lawfully  or- 
dain others  to  that  office  ? 

5.  Several  of  those  who,  for  a  time,  filled  the  papal  chair 
were  afterward  deposed  as  usurpers.  Yet,  these  usurpers 
consecrated  many  archbishops  and  bishops,  some  of  whom 
(as  we  shall  presently  see)  belonged  to  the  English  church. 
With  these  facts  staring  them  in  the  face,  how  can  high 
churchmen  affirm  that  their  apostolic  succession  is  every  way 
invulnerable ;  and  how  dare  our  author  make  the  bold  as- 
sertion— "  that  the  succession  in  the  church  of  Rome  has 
never,  in  a  single  instance,  been  contested?"  There  is  no 
truth  in  such  assertions.  So  far  from  it,  that  eminent  Epis- 
copalians have  given  it  up  as  untenable  and  absurd.  Pri- 
deaux,  an  eminent  Episcopalian,  declares,  that  upon  "  this 
subject  no  certainty  is  to  be  had."  Howell,  a  very  learned 
churchman,  says,  "  Here  it  is  evident  how  very  doubtful  and 
uncertain  is  the  personal  succession  of  the  Roman  bishops." 
The  before  cited  Episcopal  Dr.  Comber,  declares,  "  There  is 
neither  truth  nor  certainty  in  the  pretended  personal 
succession  of  the  first  popes."  Other  testimony  might  be 
added,  but  these  are  abundantly  sufficient. 

We  come  now  to  the  English  succession,  and  propose  to 
notice  a  few  facts  which  go  to  show  the  very  great  uncer- 
tainty that  attaches  to  the  question  of  its  validity. 

1.  Plegmund,  archbishop  of  Canterbury,  A.  D.  891, 
was  ordained  to  his  bishoprick  by  Pope   Formosus.     Pope 


SUCCESSION    EXAMINED.  149 

/ 

Stephen  VI.  at  the  head  of  his  council,  and  afterwards  Pope 
Sergius  III.,  declared  the  ordinations  which  Formosus  had 
administered  to  be  void,  and  ordered  those  who  had  re- 
ceived them  to  be  reordainsd.  Plegmund  never  was  reor- 
dained  ;  and  yet  he  ordained  most  of  the  bishops  of  England 
for  twenty-six  years.  Will  high  churchmen  inform  us  what 
becomes  of  the  succession  in  this  instance? 

2.  Henry  Chickley,  archbishop  of  Canterbury,  A.  D.  1414, 
was  ordained  by  Pope  Gregory  XII.  This  Gregory  XII.  was 
only  a  pretender  to  the  popedom.  He  was  declared  by  a  church 
council,  held  at  Constance  A.  D.  1415,  to  be  "no  pope  of 
Rome" — "No  bishop  at  all."  He  was  displaced  from  the 
papal  chair,  and  John  XXIII.  or  XXIV.  declared  to  be  the 
lawful  pope.  Yet  this  usurper  ordained  Chickley,  and  he  con- 
tinued to  ordain  English  bishops  and  archbishops  for  twenty- 
nine  years.    "  What  an  unbroken  line  of  valid  ordinations  1" 

3.  The  see  of  Armagh  was,  for  eight  generations,  occu- 
pied by  individuals  who  had  never  received  any  ordination 
whatever.  It  is  admitted  by  Hooker,  who  is  a  standard 
author  among  Episcopalians,  that  ordination  had  frequently 
been  effected  icithout  a  bishop  to  ordain  ;  therefore,  says  he, 
"  we  are  not  simply  without  exception  to  urge  a  lineal 
descent  of  power  from  the  Apostles  by  continued  succes- 
sions of  bishops,  in  every  effectual  ordination." 

4.  There  is  no  record  which  can  be  relied  upon,  of  the 
succession  in  the  English  church  either  in  Britain  or  at 
Rome,  for  nearly  ?ix  hundred  years, — up  to  the  time  when 
Augustine  was  sent  to  establish  Christianity  in  Britain.  The 
Episcopal  Stillingfleet  affirms,  "that  by  the  loss  of  records 
of  the  British  churches,  we  cannot  draw  down  the  succes- 
sion of  bishops  from  the  Apostles'  time;"  and  adds,  "  if  we 
come  to  Rome,  here  the  succession  is  as  muddy  as  the  Ti- 
ber itself."  "  What  shall  we  say,"  he  asks,  "  to  extricate  our- 
selves out  of  this  labyrinth  ?" 

5    At  the  Reformation  the  English  churches  were  not 
7 


150  THE  CLAIMS  TO  APOSTOLIC 

only  excommunicated  and  anathematized  by  the  pope,  but 
they  entirely  repudiated  his  authority,  and  placed  their 
king  in  his  stead.  They  acknowledged  their  king  to 
be  the  fountain  of  ecclesiastical  power  ;  the  Supreme  Head 
in  earth  of  the  English  church.  Bishops  took  out  their 
commissions  from  him,  and  submitted  to  be  deprived  of  their 
orders  by  him.  How  is  it  possible,  after  this  excommuni- 
cation, repudiation,  and  substitution,  for  the  English 
church,  with  any  confidence  or  propriety,  to  go  back  to 
Rome  for  their  Apostolic  succession? 

6.  The  validity  of  the  ordination  of  Archbishcp  Parker, 
upcn  which  Episcopalians  admit  the  validity  of  their  succes- 
sion very  much  depends,  has  ever  been  considered  exceeding- 
ly doubtful,  both  as  to  the  form  of  ordination  used  at  the  time, 
and  the  persons  who  ordained  him.  We  have  not  time  to 
go  at  length  into  this  matter.  It  will  be  sufficient  for  our 
present  purpose  to  state,  that  the  validity  of  this  ordination 
became  an  affair  of  so  much  dispute,  that  Parliament  deem- 
ed it  necessary  to  pass  an  act  declaring  it  valid.  Perhaps 
the  British  Parliament  had  the  power,  by  declaring  it  to  be 
so,  to  render  this  ordination  truly  Apostolical  I  The  very 
lame  defence  of  Parker's  ordination  by  our  author  shows 
that  its  validity  is  extremely  doubtful.  "  But,"  says  he, 
"  even  upon  the  supposition  that  Parker's  consecration  was 
not  valid,  it  would  not  vitiate  the  ordinations  performed  by 
him,  for  he  was  always  assisted  by  other  bishops  whose  con- 
secration was  undisputed,  and  the  succt^Rm  would  descend 
through  them."  We  will  reply  to  this  remark  in  the  lan- 
guage of  the  learned  Powell.  He  says,  "  In  the  ordination 
of  a  bishop,  there  is  always  one  bishop  who  alone  consecrates. 
This  is  the  universal  language  of  the  rituals  on  the  subject. 
The  other  bishops  who  take  part  in  the  ceremony  are  rather 
there  as  icitnesses,  than  as  consecrators.  The  ancient  rituals 
never  speak  of  more  than  one  ccnsecrator.  In  all  the 
ancient  Greek  forms  of  ordination,  as  exhibited  by  Morinus, 


SUCCESSION  EXAMINED.  151 

one  bishop  only  lays  his  hand  upon  the  head  of  the  person  to 
be  ordained  ;  the  other  bishops  touching  the  Gospels  placed 
upon  the  head  of  the  person  to  be  ordained.  In  the  Roman 
church  the  other  bishops  touched  his  head,  but  did  not  lay 
their  hands  on  his  head.  One  bishop  only  pronounced  the 
consecration  prayer.  This  was,  in  ninety-nine  cases  cf  a 
hundred,  either  the  pope  or  the  archbishop.  See  Morinus, 
Part  II.,  pages  234  and  253.  The  consecration  of  bishops, 
therefore,  always  depended  upon  the  capability  of  the  one 
bishop  ivho  consecrated ;  and  whenever  he  was  found  to  be 
really  incompetent,  the  general  rule  was  to  quash  all  his  or- 
dinations." "  The  rule  just  stated,"  continues  this  author, 
"makes  it  difficult  to  prove  the  validity  of  Archbishop  Parker's 
consecration,  upon  which  all  the  present  ordinations  and 
consecrations  of  the  English  church,  since  their  formation, 
depends.  Barlow  was  his  only  consecrator  ;  but  there  is 
not  full  proof  that  Barlow  himself  was  consecrated.  The 
acts  of  the  consecration  of  bishops  are  generally  registered 
in  the  archives  of  the  archbishop ;  but  no  registration  of 
Barlow's  consecration  can  be  found."  So  much  for  Arch- 
bishop Parker's  consecration.  But  we  are  told,  by  our  au- 
thor, that  the  English  church  have  no  need  to  trace  their 
succession  through  the  church  of  Rome ;  and  he  more  than 
intimates  that  they  are  able  to  trace  it  through  the  ancient 
Briton  bishops  up  to  the  Apostle  Paul.  If  this  is  the  case, 
we  are  surprised  that  our  author,  in  his  ample  appendix,  did 
not  give  us  another  catalogue  of  Apostolic  succession,  run- 
ning in  that  direction.  It  is  passing  strange  that  he  should 
content  himself  with  giving  the  line  of  succession  which 
runs  up  through  the  "  mother  of  harlots"  when  he  had  at 
hand  a  much  purer  line,  by  taking  the  direction  of  the  an- 
cient Briton  bishops.  Two  remarks  will  be  sufficient  to 
spoil  the  face  of  the  newly  discovered  road  to  the  Apostles. 
1.  If  we  can  gather  any  thing  definite  upon  the  subject 
from  history,  these  bishops  were  nothing  more  than  presbyter 


152  THE    CLAIMS    TO    APOSTOLIC 

bishops.  It  is  very  certain  that  the  papal  church  consider- 
ed their  consecration  entirely  invalid;  for  Theodore,  arch- 
bishop of  Canterbury,  finding  that  Wini  had  suffered  two  of 
these  Briton  bishops  to  assist  him  in  consecrating  a  bishop, 
by  the  name  of  Chadda,  declared  Chadda's  consecration  to 
be  illegal  and  void,  and  himself  reordained  him.  Now,  the 
archbishop  would  never  have  taken  this  course,  if  there  had 
not  been,  in  his  opinion,  some  fatal  defect  in  the  consecration 
of  these  bishops. 

2.  It  is  a  fact,  not  disputed  by  any,  that,  along  time  pre- 
vious to  the  English  reformation,  the  Briton  bishops  em- 
braced the  papal  religion,  and  became  incorporated  into  the 
papal  church;  so  that  it  is  impossible  that  the  English 
church  should  claim  any  succession  through  them,  separate 
from  the  papacy.  Besides,  it  is  notorious  that  the  present 
English  race  are  not  descended  from  the  ancient  Britons, 
nor  have  they  ever  had  any  intimate  connexion  with  them. 
They  came  down  from  the  Saxons,  who  conquered  the  Bri- 
tons, and  drove  their  bishops  into  Wales.  The  truth  is,  that 
the  English  church  have  never  attempted  to  trace  their  pre- 
latical  succession  up  to  the  Apostles,  in  any  other  line  than 
that  which  runs  directly  through  the  church  of  Rome ;  and 
we  flatter  ourselves  that  we  have  succeeded  in  proving  that 
to  be  defective  enough. 

We  come  now  to  consider  the  A  mcrican  succession.  This 
has  been  held  by  some  Episcopalians  as  defective  in  several 
points.  By  this  we  mean  that  sad  defects  have  been  said  to 
inhere  in  their  prelatical  succession  since  its  introduction 
into  America. 

1.  Bishop  Seabury  received  his  consecration  from  the 
non-juring  bishops  of  Scotland.  Now  it  is  well  known  to 
all  who  are  at  all  informed  upon  this  subject,  that  many  emi- 
nent Episcopalians,  both  of  this  and  the  mother  country, 
have  considered  the  prelatical  character  of  those  Scottish 
bishops  as  exceedingly  doubtful.     Bishop  White  affirms  that 


PI 
0( 


SUCCESSION    EXAMINED.  153 

it  was  the  doubts  which  existed,  as  to  the  validity  of  Bishop 
eabury's  Episcopacy,  which  actuated  some  in  directing  the 
convention  to  England  rather  than  to  Scotland  as  the  source 
of  the  American  Episcopate. 

2.  Many  Episcopalians  have  thought  that  the  consecration 
of  Bishops  Hobart  and  Griswold  was  entirely  defective  and 
void,  owing  to  the  omission  of  an  essential  part  of  the  form 
of  consecration.  There  was.  at  the  time,  a  warm  contro- 
versy carried  on  in  the  Episcopal  church  upon  that  subject. 
From  a  pamphlet  then  published,  entitled,  "  Serious  thoughts 
on  a  late  administration  of  Episcopal  orders,  submitted  to 
the  calm  reflection  of  the  bishops  of  the  Protestant  Episco- 
pal church,  with  a  postcript  in  answer  to  Dr.  Bowden's  es- 
sentials of  ordination  stated,"  we  take  the  following  extracts  : 
"  From  the  considerations  which  have  been  offered,  serious 
doubts  at  least  are  entertained,  by  many  of  its  pious  and  in- 
telligent members,  of  the  validity  of  the  consecration  sup- 
posed to  be  administered,"  &x.  "  Suppose  these  doubts  to 
be  well  founded ;  suppose  that,  at  some  future  period,  when 
the  heat  of  passion  is  allayed,  when,  calm  reflection  is  suf- 
fered to  be  called  into  exercise,  that  then  it  shall  be  found 
and  acknowledged  that  the  considerations  here  advanced 
have  weight,  and  that  the  consecration  is  attended  with  one 
essential  defect.  What  will  then  be  the  state  of  our  church  ? 
Our  priesthood  invalid,  our  succession  lost,  numbers,  under 
a  show  of  ordination,  administering  without  authority;  the 
evil  so  extended  as  to  be  beyond  the  power  of  correction." 
"  For  myself  I  am  seriously  and  conscientiously  persuaded 
that  the  omission  of  the  solemn  words  is  material,  that  it  is 
essential,  that  it  renders  the  whole  form,  besides,  an  utter 
nullity."  Thus  you  perceive  that  even  the  American  suc- 
cession has  not  existed  without  serious  doubts  and  warm 
controversies  concerning  its  validity.  And  yet  we  are  told 
that  unless  we  are  prepared  to  admit  this  whole  chain  of  suc- 
cession, papacy  and   all,  we  are  excluded  the  "covenanted 


154  THE  CLAIMS  TO  APOSTOLIC 

mercies  of  God"  and  have  no  right  to  the  name  and  the  or- 
dinances of  a  Christian  church.  We,  my  brethren,  should 
be  exceedingly  thankful  that  high  churchmen  are  not  our 
judges ;  and  that  we  have  the  blessed  assurance  that,  upon 
this  subject,  God's  ways  are  not  as  their  ways,  nor  his  thoughts 
as  their  thoughts.  In  the  language  of  another,  "  We  cannot 
see  how  any  man  can  attempt  to  sustain  the  validity  and  cer- 
tainty of  this  personal  succession  during  all  previous  ages. 
Who  shall  lift  this  ponderous  chain,  even  at  its  connection 
with  the  Reformation,  and  carry  it  backwards  until  it  is  ap- 
pended to  Christ  Jesus  the  rock  of  ages,  the  cause  of  causes — 
so  that  from  him  may  proceed  the  influence  which  may 
propagate  downwards  to  the  very  last  point  in  the  lengthen- 
ing series?  We  again  challenge  the  proof  which  has  been 
so  boldly  offered.  And  in  default  of  this — and  assuredly  it 
is  wanting  at  every  stage — we  fearlessly  scout  the  whole 
hypothesis  as  wild,  chimerical,  fictitious,  and  unsupported, 
either  by  history  or  Scripture"  How  mi>ch  more  rational, 
my  hearers,  is  the  view  of  this  subject  taken  by  Presbytery, 
as  stated  in  a  previous  discourse,  viz.,  that  the  ministerial 
commission  was  given  to  the  disciples  as  Presbyters  and  not 
as  Apostles ;  that  it  is  handed  down  to  the  church  in  the 
line  of  presbyters  or  simple  pastors,  and  not  of  diocesan 
bishops :  that  if,  by  any  means,  there  should  be  a  flaw  in  the 
succession,  it  would  not  invalidate  the  commission  ;  and 
that  every  one  who  enters  the  ministry  should  be  called  im- 
mediately by  Christ  through  the  Spirit,  which  call  is  indi- 
cated to  him  by  the  state  of  his  mind  and  the  providences 
of  God  towards  him.  The  question  whether  he  has  been  so 
called  to  the  ministry,  is  finally  to  be  decided  by  the  church 
through  hex  presbyters  ;  and  the  act  of  ordination  is  the  pub- 
lic announcement  of  that  decision,  and  the  consecration  of 
the  candidate,  in  the  most  solemn  manner,  to  the  work  to 
which  he  has  been  called  by  his  Lord  and  Master. 

We  leave  it  for  the  hearer  to  judge  whether,  in  these 


SUCCESSION    EXAMINED.  155 

discussions,  we  have  succeeded  in  showing  this  to  be  the 
Scripture  view  of  the  subject,  sustained  by  the  after  history 
of  the  church.  We  have  now  finished  the  arduous  labc'r 
which  circumstances  compelled  us  to  undertake.  It  was 
commenced  with  great  reluctance,  and  has  been  carried  ca 
in  the  midst  of  great  excitement  and  opposition  ;  and  we 
conclude  it,  with  joy  and  thanksgiving  to  Almighty  Gcd  fcr 
his  sustaining  arace  unto  the  end.  We  have  never,  fi  r  one 
moment,  regretted  the  taking  up  of  the  subject,  ncr  the  man- 
ner in  which  we  have  discussed  it;  but  we  did  seriously  re- 
gret the  course  of  another,  which  made  it  necessary  f  r  us 
to  turn  aside  from  the  more  pleasant  duties  cf  the  ministry, 
and  enter  the  arena  of  controversy  with  a  denomination  with 
whom  we  have  lived  for  years  in  peace  and  amity.  We  are 
perfectly  willing  that  others  should  build  their  castles  as  they 
please;  but  when  they  attack  curs,  and  attempt  to  pull  it 
down  about  our  ears,  the  law  of  self-defence  must  be  obeyed. 
The  tendency  cf  high  church  principles  is  fast  deveh  ping 
itself  in  the  rapid  strides  which  Puseyism  is  making  in  the 
Episcopal  church,  both  in  the  old  world  and  in  the  new. 
They  lead  to  popery ;  and  if  they  do  net  bring  those  who 
embrace  them  to  such  a  result,  it  is  owing  to  the  goodness 
of  God  in  causing  them  to  stop  short  cf  the  goal  to  which 
they  naturally  conduct.  We  most  sincerely  wish  that  the 
Episcopal  church  may  purge  herself  of  that  dreadful  heresy, 
and  adopt  a  form  of  government  that  will  comport  with  the 
simplicity  and  beauty  cf  that  drapery  which  Christ  has 
thrown  over  his  church,  and  the  continued  wearing  cf  which 
the  gospel  so  distinctly  recommends. 


APPENDIX. 


There  are  a  few  things  contained  in  the  original  "  En- 
quiry," and  in  certain  anonymous  pamphlets  by  the  same 
author,  which  seem  to  call  for  a  miscellaneous  notice.  That 
which  first  invites  our  attention  is,  an  assertion  made  by 
our  author,  upon  the  first  page  of  the  pamphlet  entitled, 
"  Remarks  on  Mr.  Wisner's  first  Lecture  upon  the  subject 
of  Episcopacy  and  Presbytery."  It  is  as  follows:  "Again, 
it  was  stated  that  the  *  Queen  was  the  head  of  the  church 
of  England/  This  is  true  only  in  part.  The  Queen, 
together  with  the  government,  is  the  head  of  the  political 
and  temporal  affairs  only  of  the  church ;  just  so  far  as  its 
connection  with  the  state  makes  it  necessary,  and  no  far- 
ther. Neither  the  Queen  or  the  Parliament  have  any 
authority  in  spiritual  matters,  no  control  over  the  doctrines, 
the  discipline,  or  the  ivorship  of  the  church."  It  is  a  matter 
of  great  surprise  that  the  Rev.  Author,  in  the  face  of  an 
intelligent  community  like  ours,  should  make  such  asser- 
tions as  these.  No  wonder  that  he  refused  to  append  his 
name  to  the  pamphlet  in  which  they  are  contained.  Can 
any  one,  at  all  acquainted  with  English  law  and  English 
history,  pretend,  with  our  author,  that  "  neither  the  Queen 
or  the  Parliament  have  any  authority  in  spiritual  matters — 
no  control  over  the  doctrines,  the  discipline,  or  the  worship 
of  the  church  Vr  Let  us  see  what  Sir  Wm.  Blackstone,  in 
his  commentary  upon  English  law,  says  upon  this  subject : 
"The  King,"  says  he,  Book  I.,  chap,  vii.,  "is  lastly  con- 
sidered by  the  laws  of  England  as  the  head   and  supreme 


APPENDIX.  157 

governor  of  the  national  church.  To  enter  into  the  reasons 
upon  which  this  prerogative  is  founded,  is  matter  rather  of 
divinity  than  of  law.  I  shall  therefore  only  observe,  that 
by  statute  26  Henry  VIII. ,  chap.  i. — reciting  that  the 
King's  majesty  justly  and  rightfully  is  and  ought  to  be  the 
supreme  head  of  the  church  of  England,  and  so  had  been 
recognized  by  the  clergy  of  the  kingdom,  (in  their  convoca- 
tion)— it  is  enacted  that  the  King  shall  be  reputed  the  only 
supreme  head  in  earth  of  the  church  of  England,  and  shall 
have  annexed  to  the  imperial  crown  of  this  realm,  as  well 
the  title  thereof,  as  all  jurisdictions,  authorities,  commodities, 
to  the  said  dignity  of  the  supreme  head  of  the  church  ap- 
pertaining. And  another  statute  to  the  same  purport,  made 
1  Elizabeth,  c.  i. :  '  In  virtue  of  this  authority,  the  King 
convenes,  prorogues,  restrains,  regulates,  and  dissolves  all 
ecclesiastical  synods  or  convocations.5  "  Again  :  "  So  that 
the  statute  25  Henry  VIII.,  c.  xix.,  which  restrains  the 
convocation  from  making  or  putting  in  execution  any 
canons  repugnant  to  the  King's  prerogative,  or  the  laws, 
customs,  and  statutes  of  the  realm,  was  merely  declaratory 
of  the  old  common  law  ;  that  part  of  it  only  being  new 
which  makes  the  King's  royal  assent  actually  necessary  to 
the  validity  of  every  canon.,}  Once  more  :  "  From  this 
prerogative  also  of  being  the  head  of  the  church,  arises  the 
King's  right  of  nomination  to  vacant  bishopricks,  and 
certain  other  ecclesiastical  preferments,  which  will  mere 
properly  be  considered  when  we  come  to  treat  of  the  clergy. 
I  shall  only  here  observe  that  this  is  now  done  in  conse- 
quence of  the  statute  25  Henry  VIII.,  c.  xx.  As  head  of 
the  church,  the  King  is  likewise  the  dernier  resort  in  all 
ecclesiastical  causes  ;  an  appeal  lying  ultimately  to  him,  in 
chancery,  from  the  sentence  of  every  ecclesiastical  judge ; 
which  right  was  restored  to  the  crown  by  statute  25  Henry 
VIII.,  c.  xix., — as  will  be  more  fully  shown  hereafter. " 
From  all    of    which  we  learn  that  the  King,  as  supreme 

7* 


158  APPENDIX, 

head  of  the  English  church,  possesses  the  following  preroga- 
tives : 

1.  He  convenes,  prorogues,  restrains,  regulates,  and 
dissolves  all  ecclesiastical  synods  or  convocations. 

2.  No  ecclesiastical  or  canon  law  can  be  enacted  by  the 
constituted  authorities  of  the  church,  without  his  royal  as- 
sent. 

3.  He  has  a  right  to  nominate  to  vacant  bishopricks. 

4.  He  is  likewise  the  dernier  resort  in  all  ecclesiastical 
causes — an  appeal  lying  ultimately  to  him,  in  chancery, 

from  the  sentence  of  every  ecclesiastical  judge.  And  yet 
our  author  is  bold  to  assert,  that  "  neither  the  Queen  or 
Parliament  have  any  authority  in  spiritual  matters  ;  no  con- 
trol over  the  doctrines,  the  discipline,  or  the  worship  of  the 
church."  Has  he  forgotten  the  "  act  of  conformity,"  which 
drenched  England  with  the  blood  of  her  very  best 
citizens,  and  exiled  our  Puritan  fathers  to  the  wilds  of 
America? 

We  leave  our  author  to  settle  this  matter  with  Judge 
Blackstone,  and  with  every  English  historian  who  has  ever 
written  upon  the  subject.  There  are  two  other  prerogatives 
to  which  we  would  refer  the  reader,  in  order  that  he  may 
judge  how  entirely  the  Kin^  (0r  Queen)  is  the  supreme  ec- 
clesiastical head  of  the  church. 

1.  The  King  receives  all  resignations  of  archbisheps  ; 
they  are  made  to  him  alone.  Blackstone  says,  Book  I.,  c. 
xi.,  "  All  resignations  must  be  made  to  some  superior. 
Therefore  a  bishop  must  resign  to  his  metropolitan  ;  but  the 
archbishop  can  resign  to  none  but  the  King  himself" 

2.  English  bishops  cannot  be  appointed  and  consecrated 
without  a  license  from  the  King.  Blackstone  says,  Book  I., 
c.  xi ,  "  But,  by  statute  25  Henry  VIII.,  c.  xx.,  the  ancient 
right  of  nomination  was,  in  effect,  restored  to  the  crown ; 
it  being  enacted,  that,  at  every  avoidance  of  a  bisheprick, 
the  King  may  send  the  dean  and  chapter  his  usual  license 


AFPENDIX.  159 

to  proceed  to  an  election ;  which  is  always  to  be  accompa- 
nied with  a  letter  missive  from  the  King,  containing  the 
name  of  the  person  he  would  have  them  elect;  and  if  the 
dean  and  chapter  delay  their  election  above  twelve  days,  the 
nomination  shall  devolve  to  the  King,  who  may,  by  letters 
patent,  appoint  such  persons  as  he  pleases.  This  election, 
or  nomination,  if  it  be  of  a  bishop,  must  be  signified  by  the 
King's  letters  patent  to  the  archbishop  of  the  province ;  if 
it  be  an  archbishop,  the  other  archbishop  and  two  bishops, 
.or  to  four  bishops;  requiring  them  to  confirm,  invest,  and 
consecrate  the  person  so  elected,  which  they  are  bound  to 
perform  immediately,  without  any  application  to  the  see  of 
Rome."  That  the  King  appoints  the  bishops  is  also  evident 
from  the  following  quotation  taken  from  an  English  work, 
entitled,  "  Book  of  Denominations,"  page  395  :  *'  In  the 
church  of  England  we  have  two  archbishops.  The  name  is 
as  antichristian  as  the  thing.  What  aiethe  duties  cf  the 
office  it  is  difficult  to  ascert  lin.  Those  sustaining  it  hive 
no  functions  distinct  from  the  bishops,  nor  does  it  appear 
that  they  hive  any  jurisdiction  over  them.  They  do  not 
appoint  them ;  the  King  does :  and  they  cannot  remove 
them.  They  cannot,  without  the  King's  concurrence,  cili 
them  together  in  convocation.  Their  sob  use,  theref  re, 
seems  to  be  to  rear  their  mitred  fronts  in  caarts  and  pirli  > 
meats,  to  vote  in  the  train  of  ministers,  to  rule  their  wide 
an:l  opulent  dominions,  count  their  enormous  revenues,  and 
dispose  of  good  livings  to  sans,  brothers,  nephews,  cousins, 
relations,  and  dependents  without  end,  as  lhair  own  interest 
or  the  interest  of  ministers,  reserved  by  special  agreement, 
may  dictate."  Daes  our  author  know  thit,  after  these 
provinces  were  separated  from  the  British  crown  and  had 
become  a  republic,  Bishops  White,  Provost,  and  Madison, 
were  consecrated  by  English  bishops,  u  ider  a  royal  license, 
in  accord  mce  with  an  act  of  parliament  especially  enacted 
to  meet  such  cases?     It  is  entitled,  "An  act  to  empower  the 


160  APPENDIX. 

archbishop  of  Canterbury  or  the  archbishop  of  York,  for 
the  time  being,  to  consecrate  to  the  office  of  bishcp,  persons 
being  subjects  or  citizens  of  countries  out  of  his  majesty's 
dominions." 

THE  ACT. 

"Whereas,  by  the  laws  of  this  realm,  no  person  can  be 
consecrated  to  the  office  of  a  Bishop  without  the  King's 
license  for  his  election  to  that  office,  and  the  royal  mandate 
under  the  great  seal  for  his  confirmation  and  consecration  ; 
and  whereas,  every  person  who  shall  be  consecrated  to  the 
said  office  is  required  to  take  the  oaths  of  allegiance  and 
supremacy,  and  also  the  oath  of  due  obedience  to  the  Arch- 
bishop ;  and  whereas,  there  are  divers  persons,  subjects  or 
citizens  of  countries  out  of  his  majesty's  dominions,  inhabit- 
ing and  residing  within  the  said  countries,  who  profess  the 
public  worship  of  Almighty  God  according  to  the  principles 
of  the  Church  of  England,  and  who,  in  order  to  provide  a 
regular  succession  of  ministers  for  the  service  of  their 
Church,  are  desirous  of  having  certain  of  the  subjects  or 
citizens  of  those  countries  consecrated  Bishops  according 
to  the  form  of  consecration  in  the  Church  of  England  ; 
Be  it  enacted,  by  the  King's  most  excellent  majesty,  and  by 
and  with  the  consent  of  the  Lords  spiritual  and  temporal, 
and  Commons,  in  this  present  parliament  assembled,  and  by 
the  authority  of  the  same,  that  from  and  after  the  passing  of 
this  act,  it  shall  and  may  be  lawful  to  and  for  the  Arch- 
bishop of  Canterbury  or  the  Archbishop  of  York,  for  the 
time  being,  together  with  such  other  Bishops  as  they  shall 
call  to  their  assistance,  to  consecrate  persons  being  subjects 
or  citizens  of  countries  out  of  his  majesty's  dominions, 
Bishops,  for  the  purpose  aforesaid,  without  the  King's 
license  for  their  election,  or  the  royal  mandate  under  the 
great  seal  for  their  confirmation  and  consecration,  and  with- 


APPENDIX.  161 

out  requiring  them  to  take  the  oath  of  allegiance  and 
supremacy,  and  the  oath  of  due  obedience  to  the  Archbishop 
for  the  time  being  :  Provided  always,  that  no  person  shall  be 
consecrated  Bishop  in  the  manner  herein  provided,  until 
the  Archbishop  of  Canterbury  or  the  Archbishop  of  York, 
for  the  time  being,  shall  have  first  applied  for  and  obtained 
his  majesty's  license,  by  warrant  under  his  royal  signet  and 
sign  manual,  authorizing  and  empowering  him  to  perform 
such  consecration  ;  and  expressing  the  riame  or  names  of  the 
persons  so  to  be  consecrated ;  nor  until  the  said  Archbishop 
has  been  fully  ascertained  of  their  sufficiency  in  good  learn- 
ing, of  the  soundness  of  their  faith,  and  of  the  purity  of  their 
manners  :  Provided  also,  and  it  is  hereby  declared,  that  no 
person  or  persons  consecrated  to  the  office  of  a  Bishop  in 
the  manner  aforesaid,  nor  any  person  or  persons  deriving 
their  consecration  from  or  under  any  Bishops  so  consecrated, 
or  by  the  successor  or  successors  of  any  Bishop  so  conse- 
crated, shall  be,  hereby,  enabled  to  exercise  his  or  their 
respective  office  or  offices  within  his  majesty's  dominions," 
&.c.  Here  then  the  reader  may  perceive  the  manner  in 
which  the  "  true  succession,"  as  it  is  termed,  was  introduced 
from  England  into  the  American  Episcopal  church, — 
UNDER  A  ROYAL  LICENSE  IN  ACCORDANCE 
WITH  A  SPECIAL  PARLIAMENTARY  ENACT- 
MENT FOR  THE  PURPOSE.  In  order  to  obtain  it, 
her  Bishops  must  submit  to  the  humiliating  condition  of 
receiving  consecration  from  an  English  Archbishop  in  such 
a  manner  as  to  disqualify  them  from  exercising  their  offices 
in  his  majesty's  dominions;  and  this  disqualification  must 
descend  in  the  line  of  the  succession  to  the  latest  genera- 
tion. Under  this  law,  the  clergy  of  the  American  Episcopal 
church  could  not  even  pass  the  lines  into  Canada  and  exer- 
cise their  offices  as  bishops,  priests,  or  deacons.  If  this 
is  not  kissing  the  dust  upon  which  treads  the  foot  of  Eng- 
land's proud  monarch,  for  the  sake  of  "  worthless  succes- 


162  APPENDIX. 

sion,"  we  know  not  how  it  can  be  done.  We  trust  that,  by 
this  time,  it  will  be  perfectly  evident  to  all  how  entirely 
groundless  is  the  assertion  of  our  author,  that  "  neither  the 
Queen  nor  the  Parliament  have  any  authority  in  spiritual 
matters;  no  control  over  the  doctrines,  the  discipline,  or  the 
worship  of  the  church."  The  Queen,  as  "  supreme  head 
in  earth  of  the  English  Church,"  possesses  supreme  ecclesi- 
astical authority. 

II.  The  next  subject  claiming  our  attention  is  involved 
in  certain  interrogations  put,  by  our  author,  to  the  writer. 
They  are  as  follows :  "  But  the  Rev.  Lecturer  went  on  to 
say  that  the  Episcopal  church  in  this  country  had  no  head 
because  there  was  no  king  ;  evidently  implying  that  if  there 
were,  American  Episcopalians  would  make  him  their  head, 
and  turn  tories  and  monarchists.  Was  this  assault  on  the 
political  sentiments  of  a  religious  body  warranted  by  the  oc- 
casion? Is  the  gentleman  willing  to  stand  by  it  and  sustain 
it  with  proofs  ?  Will  he  undertake  to  show  that  Episcopacy 
has  a  necessary  or  even  accidental  tendency  to  a  despotic 
form  of  government  V  Our  answer  to  these  interrogatories  is, 

1.  We  never  asserted  that  the  Episcopal  church  in  this 
country  was  without  a  head.  We  said  that  "  the  Episcopal 
church  in  this  country  have  concluded  to  dispense  with  a 
king  as  their  supreme  earthly  head,  it  not  being  very  con- 
venient to  find  one." 

2.  We  never  asserted  that  Episcopacy  tends  to  mon- 
archy ;  no  opinion  whatever  was  expressed  upon  the  subject. 
The  letter  of  Charles  the  First  was  quoted,  in  which  he  in- 
troduces the  words  of  another — "  No  Bishop,  no  King  ;"  but 
the  quotation  was  made  without  note  or  comment,  in  order 
to  introduce  the  reply  of  his  tried  friends  and  counsellors  to 
whom  it  was  addressed,  so  as  to  make  use  of  that  reply  to 
show  their  sentiments  upon  the  subject  of  diocesan  bishops 
being  necessary  to  constitute  a  "  true  church."  But  we 
are  perfectly  willing  to  express  our  opinions  fully  and  fairly 


APPENDIX.  163 

upon  this  subject,  and  high  churchmen  are  welcome  to 
make  all  the  capital  out  of  it  they  are  able.  They  shall  be 
expressed  in  the  language  of  the  late  learned  Dr.  Rice  of 
Virginia.  He  says  :  "  I  am  represented  as  injurious  for  say- 
ing that  high  church  principles  are  opposed  to  the  genius  of 
our  institutions.  It  is  useless  to  disclaim,  in  presence  of 
heated  partisans,  all  intention  of  doing  injury.  But  if  I  can 
fairly  prove  the  soundness  of  my  opinions,  the  impartial  will 
acquit  me  of  evil  intention  in  giving  them  utterance.  I  show 
no  enmity  when  I  tell  the  truth.  Hear  then  my  reasons. 
The  laws  of  our  country  secure  perfect  religious  liberty  to 
every  citizen ;  and  all  have  equal  rights.  Methodists,  Bap- 
tists, Presbyterians,  Lutherans,  Episcopalians,  &,c,  all  stand 
on  the  same  level.  And  the  ministers  of  any  one  religious  de- 
nomination have,  according  to  the  law  of  the  land,  the  same 
authority  to  teach  and  administer  ordinances  as  those  of  any 
other  denomination.  Marriage  celebrated  by  a  dissenter  is 
as  valid  and  as  sacred  as  though  the  service  were  performed 
by  an  Archbishop.  But  the  high  churchmen,  to  a  man, 
maintain  that  none  have  a  right  to  teach  or  administer  ordi- 
nances save  only  ministers  of  their  church.  Indeed  there  is 
no  church,  there  are  no  true  sacraments,  no  valid  adminis- 
trations but  theirs.  Now  here  is  a  direct  opposition.  The 
law  of  the  land  says  one  thing,  high  churchmen  affirm  direct- 
ly the  contrary.  There  is,  indeed,  a  just  distinction  between 
civil  and  ecclesiastical  rights  ;  and  the  churchman  is  by  no 
means  charged  with  confounding  them.  He  doubtless  knows 
and  admits  that,  in  this  country,  the  men  whom  he  persists 
in  calling  dissenters,  have  a  civil  right  to  do  what  he  denies 
that  they  are  authorized  to  do  by  the  laws  of  Christ's 
church.  But  this  does  not  destroy  the  force  of  the 
allegation  ;  because  the  religious  principle,  when  excited,  is 
the  most  powerful  in  human  nature  ;  the  interest  created  by 
religion  is  all-absorbing  in  its  influence  ;  it  reaches  to  all 
man's  relations  and  concerns ;  more  than  any  thing  else  it 


164  APPENDIX. 

comes  home  to  his  '  business  and  bosom.'  It  is  like  leaven 
which  a  woman  took  and  hid  in  three  measures  of  meal,  un- 
til the  whole  was  leavened.  One  must  be  quite  ignorant  of 
the  history  of  religion,  to  deny  that  it  is  comparatively  easy 
to  persuade  a  man  that  any  thing  is  totally  and  absolutely 
wrong,  which  he  believes  to  be  opposed  to  the  fundamental 
principles  of  his  religion.  But  the  quotations  made  above 
show  that  high  churchmen  regard  the  particular  form  of  the 
church  as  essential  to  the  being  of  the  church.       It  is  in 

FACT  A  QUESTION  OF  CHURCH  OR  No  CHURCH  ;  AND  ALL 
WHO    ARE    NOT    MEMBERS    OF    THE    EPISCOPAL    CHURCH     ARE 

under  great  guilt.  The  whole  body  of  American  Chris- 
tians belonging  to  non-episcopal  churches  are  schismatics, 
and,  without  any  assurance  of  salvation,  are  left  to  uncove- 
nanted  mercies.  It  is  the  church  ministry  and  sacraments 
which  render  the  Scripture  sufficient,  &c.  I  ask,  then,  is 
not  a  religious  man  who  has  adopted  high  church  principles 
under  the  influence  of  a  cause  which  operates  against  the 
American  principles  of  perfect  religious  liberty  ?  Let  intel- 
ligent and  impartial  men  judge.  It  would  require  more  room, 
I  fear,  than  you  could  afford,  to  adduce  historical  evidence  in 
support  of  these  *  reasonings;'  for  so,  with  Mr.  G.'s  leave, 
pace  tanti  viri,  1  must  call  them.  Let  me  only  ask,  Who 
supported  the  courts  of  high  commission  and  the  star  cham- 
ber? Who  were  the  stanch  advocates  of  all  the  arbitrary 
measures  of  the  house  of  Stuart  ?  Who  opposed  the  glori- 
ous revolution — but  high  churchmen  ?  On  the  other  hand, 
in  all  these  instances,  did  not  low  churchmen  and  dissenters, 
as  far  as  politics  were  concerned,  unite  heartily  and  co-op- 
erate vigorously  ?  The  faithful  records  of  history  afford,  on 
this  subject,  a  series  of  most  instructive  facts,  and  warrant 
the  strongest  conclusions  as  to  the  tendency  of  high  church 
principles.  But  while  impartial  men  easily  see  the  truth  of 
these  statements,  it  may  not  be  so  obvious  to  the  most  re- 
spectable and  intelligent,  whose  minds  are  filled  with  the 


APPENDIX  165 

prejudices  of  education,  and  excited  by  the  heats  of  contro- 
versy ;  and  unhappily  this  has  long  been  a  subject  of  contro- 
versy. How  can  it  be  otherwise  when  high  churchmen  pro- 
claim that  all  the  authority  of  the  church  is  in  their  hands? 
But  as  for  us — our  ministers,  they  say,  are  intruders  into  the 
sacred  office  ;  our  sacraments  invalid  ;  our  hopes  unwar- 
ranted ;  and  cur  meetings  schismatical  assemblages.  In 
this  state  of  things  there  will,  and  there  ought  to  be,  con- 
troversy. The  high  churchmen  will  endeavor  to  support 
their  dignity,  and  dissenters  ought  to  maintain  their  rights, 
and  l  to  stand  fast  in  that  liberty  wherewith  Christ  has 
made  us  free.'  Yes,  there  must  be  controversy  while  extra- 
vagant claims  are  put  in  on  one  side,  and  the  spirit  of  reli- 
gious freedom  exists  on  the  other.  But  it  may  be  asked,  do 
not  high  churchmen  declare  that  the  effect  of  which  I  speak 
has  not  been  produced  on  their  minds;  and  do  they  not  in- 
dignantly repel  the  charge  made  against  their  principles  1 
Undoubtedly  they  do,  and,  I  admit,  with  the  utmost  sincerity. 
The  reason  is,  without  any  very  strong  religious  feeling, 
they  are,  in  this  country,  under  the  influence  of  powerful 
counteracting  causes.  A  man's  opinions  are  the  results  of 
all  the  intellectual  forces  which  bear  on  his  mind.  And,  in 
a  given  case,  to  form  any  thing  like  a  correct  judgment  re- 
specting the  tendency  of  a  particular  sentiment,  we  must 
know  all  the  circumstances  which  operate  on  the  under- 
standing. In  the  present  age,  a  very  great  majority  of  our 
fellow-citizens  are  opposed  to  high  church  principles.  And 
the  current  of  public  opinion  in  favor  of  liberty,  civil  and 
religious,  is  irresistible.  The  balance  of  the  forces  which 
press  the  mind  is,  therefore,  in  favor  of  the  institutions  of 
the  country.  But  who  can  say  that  this  would  be  the  case, 
if  a  majority  of  the  church  held  high  church  principles  ?  In 
England,  notwithstanding  many  a  hard  struggle,  the  act  of 
uniformity  was  not  repealed  until  England  had  a  Presbyte- 
rian king,  and  low  churchmen  got  into  power.     The  ccrpo- 


166  APPENDIX. 

ration  and  test  acts  could  not  be  abolished  until  it  was  done 
by  dissenters  and  low  churchmen.  Who  would  net  be 
sorely  unwilling  to  trust  their  religious  liberty  with  those 
who  have  power,  and  who  sincerely  believe  that  none  but 
themselves  are  of  the  true  church,  or  have  ecclesiastical  au- 
thority ?  I  have  never  said  or  thought  that  any  of  my  fel- 
low-Christians, of  any  denomination,  are,  in  this  age,  un- 
friendly to  the  institutions  of  our  country  ;  but  I  have  said, 
and  I  do  still  believe,  that  high  church  principles  are  opposed 
to  the  genius  of  American  institutions.  And  how  far  the 
leaven  may  work,  who  can  pretend  to  say?  The  silent, 
steady,  powerful  operation  of  a  moral  cause,  such  as  that  of 
religion,  may,  in  this  modification  of  it,  produce  results  en- 
tirely unexpected,  and  undesired  too,  by  any  Christian  now 
living  in  the  United  States.  If  the  records  of  past  time  af- 
ford any  ground  for  reasoning  as  to  the  future,  I  feel  that  I 
am  justified  in  all  that  I  have  written  on  the  subject.  And 
feeling  thus,  I  protest  against  the  inference  that  I  intended 
to  excite  odium  against  any  denomination  of  Christians.  I 
meant  to  show  that  particular  sentiments,  not  necessary  to 
constitute  a  man  a  genuine  Episcopalian,  ought  to  be  re- 
nounced. I  meant  to  do  all  in  my  power  to  insure  their  re- 
nunciation; and  this,  in  the  full  persuasion  that  the  church 
would  flourish  more  and  be  better  able  to  do  her  part  in  the 
great  work  which  must  be  done  by  American  Christians, 
without  these  principles,  than  with  them.  Believe  me,  gen- 
tlemen, all  persons  of  truly  liberal  minds  can  believe,  that 
my  chief  concern  as  a  minister  of  the  gospel  is,  that  the 
power  of  Christian  truth  may  be  felt,  and  the  blessings  of 
genuine  religion  may  be  enjoyed,  by  all  in  our  own  country. 
But  this,  I  am  persuaded,  can  never  be  the  case  while  the 
form  and  manner  in  which  the  truth  is  communicated  is  re- 
garded as  equally  essential  with  the  truth  itself.  *  In  Christ 
Jesus,  neither  circumcision  availeth  any  thing  nor  uncir- 
cumcision,  but  anew  creature.'  "     The  correctness  and  judi- 


APPENDIX,  167 

ciousness  of  these  remarks  must  be  perfectly  evident  to  every 
unprejudiced  and  truly  republican  mind  :  and  here  you  have, 
expressed  in  language  at  once  clear  and  forcible,  the  senti- 
ments of  the  writer  upon  this  subject. 

III.  The  third  particular  which  calls  for  our  special  no- 
tice at  the  present  time  is,  the  assertion  of  our  author  that 
the  ministerial  commission  is  the  principle  of  unity  in  the 
church  of  God.  On  page  11  of  "  Enquiry,"  &,c,  he  says, 
"  Now,  if  these  things  are  so,  the  inquiry  is  one  of  vast  im- 
portance and  the  deepest  interest.  Wherein  dees  unity 
consist  ?  What  is  the  principle  of  unity  in  the  one  catholic 
and  Apostolic  church?  We  answer,  the  ministerial  com- 
mission." Again,  page  12  :  "  The  result  of  the  whole,  then, 
is,  that  the  ground  cf  unity  in  the  church  is  the  ministerial 
commission,  and  by  necessary  consequence,  all  who  violate 
this  create  a  schism  in  the  vi.  ible  kingdom  of  Christ." 
This  is  placing  the  principle  of  unity  where  it  is  most  evi- 
dent the  Bible  never  placed  it.  It  is  wonderful  how  much 
wiser  some  divines  have  become  than  even  the  Apostles 
themselves!  The  Apostle  Paul,  writing  to  the  Corin- 
thians, and  wishing  to  heal  those  divisions  which  had  ob- 
tained among  them  concerning  certain  ministers,  never 
thought  so  far  as  to  extol  the  ministerial  commission;  but 
he  sank  the  minister,  and  magnified  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ. 
1  Cor.  i.  10-13  :  "  Now  I  beseech  you,  brethren,  by  the 
name  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  that  ye  all  speak  the  same 
things,  and  that  there  be  no  divisions  among  you ;  but  that 
ye  be  perfectly  joined  together  in  the  same  mind  and  the 
same  judgment.  For  it  hath  been  declared  unto  me  of  you, 
my  brethren,  by  them  which  are  of  the  house  of  Chlce, 
that  there  are  contentions  among  you.  Now  this  I  say, 
every  one  of  you  saith,  I  am  of  Paul,  and  I  of  Apollos,  and 
I  of  Cephas,  and  I  of  Christ :  Is  Christ  divided  ?  Was  Paul 
crucified  for  you  \  or  were  ye  baptized  in  the  name  of  Paul  ?" 
Again,   chap.  iii.  3-7 :   "  For  ye  are  carnal ;  for,  whereas 


168  APPENDIX. 

there  is  among  you  envying,  and  strife,  and  divisions,  are  ye 
not  carnal,  and  walk  as  men  ?  For,  while  one  saith,  I  am  of 
Paul,  and  another,  I  am  of  Apollos,  are  ye  not  carnal  ?  Who 
then  is  Paul,  and  who  is  Apollos,  but  ministers  by  whom  ye 
believed,  even  as  the  Lord  gave  to  every  man  ?  I  have  plant- 
ed, and  Apollos  watered,  but  God  gave  the  increase.  So 
then,  neither  is  he  that  planteth  any  thing,  neither  he  that 
watereth,  but  God  that  giveth  the  increase."  How  very  dif- 
ferent the  Apostle's  plan  for  uniting  this  church,  from  what 
any  man  of  common  sense,  not  to  say  an  inspired  individual, 
would  have  adopted,  provided  the  ministerial  commission  is 
the  principle  of  unity  in  the  church  of  God.  He  does  not 
mention  the  ministerial  commission.  He  sinks  the  minister, 
and  exalts  Christ  the  Lord.  This  course  he  thought  the  best 
calculated  to  heal  the  differences  and  difficulties  which  ex- 
isted in  that  church,  and  to  produce  unity  of  feeling  and 
effort. 

There  are  at  least  two  very  serious  objections  to  account- 
ing the  ministerial  commission  the  principle  of  unity  in  the 
church.  . 

1.  This  commission  is  given  to  a  comparatively  small 
portion  of  the  church.  It  is  given,  not  to  laymen,  but  to 
ministers;  and  can  it  be  possible  that  the  principle  of  unity 
in  the  church  is  contained  in  that  which  belongs — not  to  the 
whole  church — but  to  a  very  small  portion  of  her  members  ? 
Such  an  idea  should  not  for  a  moment  be  entertained. 

2.  The  ministerial  commission  fails  to  unite,  while  that 
which  God  has  made  the  principle  of  unity  in  his  church 
must,  when  possessed,  bind  that  church  together.  Hence 
the  true  method  of  ascertaining  in  wThat  consists  the  princi- 
ple of  unity  in  the  church,  is,  to  find  what  are  the  graces 
which  unite  Christians  to  each  ether,  and  to  Christ  their 
living  Head.  It  was  by  this  method  that  the  old  divines 
came  to  the  conclusion  that  love  to  God  and  the  brethren, 
and  a  similarity  of  faith  upon   all   the  essentials  of  Chris- 


APPENDIX. 


169 


tianity,  are  the  graces  which,  more  than  any  other,  contain 
the  principle  of  unity  in  the  church  of  God  ;  and  we  strongly 
suspect  that  the  inspired  Apostles  were  of  the  same  opinion. 
They  never  so  much  as  mention  the  ministerial  commission 
as  containing  the  least  uniting  power  ;  but  they  are  continu- 
ally dwelling  upon  faith  and  love,  as  those  graces  which 
possess  a  uniting,  binding  force  :  so  that,  where  they  exist, 
the  church  is  one  with  Christ,  as  the  branch  is  united  to  the 
vine,  or  its  members  to  the  human  body.  But  this  is  not 
the  case  with  the  ministerial  commission ;  where  it  exists  it 
does  not  insure  union.  High  churchmen  hold  that  the  pa- 
pists, as  well  as  themselves,  possess  the  ministerial  commis- 
sion. Are  they  therefore  one  united  church  ?  Besides,  not- 
withstanding their  high  pretensions  in  regard  to  this  com- 
mission, there  are  sad  divisions  in  the  Episcopal  church, 
both  in  England  and  in  this  country.  We  know  that  our 
author  affects  surprise  that  we  should  have  asserted  even 
that  there  are  any  differences  of  opinion  in  the  Episcopal 
church,  upon  the  divine  right  of  Episcopacy.  In  his  pam- 
phlet, entitled, "  RemarksonMr.Wisner'sfirstLecture,"  &,c, 
he  says  :  "  He,"  Mr.  Wisner,  "  stated  that  there  were  three 
parties  in  the  Episcopal  church,  holding  different  opinions 
on  the  subject  of  Episcopacy.  The  first  believing  it  to  be 
a  mere  point  of  expediency  ; — the  second  believing  it  to  have 
divine  sanction,  but  not  exclusive  ; — the  third  believing  it 
to  be  both  divine  and  exclusive  of  any  other  form  of  minis- 
try. His  statement  is  erroneous  in  two  respects.  There 
are  no  parties  in  the  Episcopal  church  on  this  subject,  or  on 
any  other.  The  church  is  one,  from  Maine  to  Georgia  ;  not 
a  bishop,  clergyman,  or  congregation,  that  is  not  in  full  har- 
monious union  with  the  whole."  In  his  second  pamphlet, 
entitled,  "  Remarks  on  Mr.  Wisner's  second  Lecture,"  &c, 
he  says  :  "  He,"  Mr.  Wisner,  "  insisted  that  there  were  three 
parties  in  the  Episcopal  church.  Can  he  tell  us  where,  and 
who  they  are,  and  give  any  definite  and  tangible  description 


170  APPENDIX. 

of  them  ?  On  what  occasion  do  they  manifest  themselves — 
in  our  general  or  diocesan  conventions,  in  our  congrega- 
tions, in  our  Missionary  and  Bible  societies?  Has  he  ever 
witnessed  or  heard  of  a  drawn  contest  on  any  question  be- 
tween them  ?  If  parties  exist,  it  is  easy  to  say  where,  and 
how.  Assertions  and  names  will  not  create  them,  if  they 
have  no  actual  being.  The  Rev.  gentleman  cannot  fasten 
his  stigma  upon  us."  What  we  said  upon  the  subject  of 
different  classes  in  the  Episcopal  church  was,  that  "the 
Episcopal  church  in  England,  and  to  a  greater  or  less  ex- 
tent in  this  country,  have  ever  been  divided  into  three  dis- 
tinct classes  upon  this  subject ;  of  which,  the  exclusive-right 
class  are,  or  if  they  are  not  now,  have  been,  until  very  lately, 
by  far  the  smallest.  The  first  class  are  these  who  believe 
that  the  New  Testament  does  not  prescribe  any  particular 
form  of  government  as  binding  upon  the  church,  but  it  was 
left  with  her  members  to  adopt  such  a  form  as  they,  under 
all  the  circumstances  of  the  case,  should  deem  most  expe- 
dient." We  mentioned  as  belonging  to  this  class,  "Arch- 
bishops Cranmer,  Grindal,  Whitgift,  and  Tillotson."  To 
these  we  added  a  list  of  bishops  and  doctors.  To  show  that 
we  are  entirely  correct  in  our  statement,  we  will  here  quote 
the  opinion  of  Archbishop  Whitgift.  In  his  book  against 
Cartwright,  he  says :  "  I  confess  that,  in  a  church  collected 
together  in  one  place  and  at  liberty,  government  is  neces- 
sary with  the  second  kind  of  necessity  ;  but  that  any  kind 
of  government  is  so  necessary  that,  without  it,  the  church  can- 
not be  saved,  or  that  it  may  not  be  altered  into  some  other 
kind  thought  to  be  more  expedient,  I  utterly  deny.  And  the 
reasons  that  move  me  to  do  so  be  these  :  The  first  is,  be- 
cause T  find  no  one  certain  and  perfect  kind  of  government 
prescribed  or  commanded  in  the  Scriptures,  to  the  church 
of  Christ ;  which,  no  doubt,  should  have  been  done,  if  it  had 
been  a  matter  necessary  to  the  salvation  of  the  church. 
There  is  no  certain  kind  of  government  or  discipline  pre- 


APPENDIX. 


m 


scribed  to  the  church  ;  but  the  same  may  be  altered,  as  the 
profit  of  the  churches  requires.  I  do  deny  that  the  Scrip- 
tures do  set  down  anyone  certain  kind  of  government  in  the 
churches,  to  be  perpetual  for  all  times,  places,  and  persons, 
without  alteration.  It  is  well  known  that  the  manner  and 
form  of  government,  used  in  the  Apostolic  time,  and  ex- 
pressed in  the  Scripture,  neither  is  now,  nor  can,  nor  ought 
to  be,  observed  ;  either  touching  the  persons  or  the  functions. 
We  see  manifestly  that,  in  sundry  points,  the  government  of 
the  church  used  in  the  Apostles'  time,  is,  and  hath  been  of 
necessity,  altered ;  and  that  it  neither  may,  nor  can  be  re- 
voked. Whereby,  it  is  plain  that  any  one  kind  of  external 
government,  perpetually  to  be  observed,  is  nowhere  in  the 
Scripture  prescribed  to  the  church,  but  the  charge  thereof  is 
left  to  the  magistrate,  so  that  nothing  be  done  contrary  to  the 
word  of  God.  This  is  the  opinion  of  the  best  writers;  nei- 
ther do  I  know  any  learned  man  of  contrary  judgment." 
This  quotation  is  so  plain  as  to  need  no  comment.  The 
second  class,  as  we  stated,  "  comprises  those  who  believe 
that  Episcopacy  was  sanctioned  by  the  Apostles,  and  that 
it  is  necessary  to  the  perfection  of  the  church  ;  but  who  deny 
that  it  is  necessary  to  her  existence.  These  acknowledge 
other  evangelical  denominations  to  be  true  churches,  al- 
though deprived  of  the  perfect  ecclesiastical  polity  preferred 
and  adopted  by  the  Apostles."  We  find  numbered  with  this 
class,  among  many  other  distinguished  names,  Archbishops 
Usher  and  Wake;  Bishops  Hall,  Downham,  Bancroft,  An- 
drews, Forbes,  Chillingworth,  Hoadly,  &c.  To  prove  the 
existence  of  this  class  we  will  quote  the  opinion  of  Archbish- 
op Wake.  In  a  letter  to  Le  Clerc  of  the  German  school,  he 
says :  "  I  freely  embrace  the  reformed  churches,  notwith- 
standing they  differ  in  some  respects  from  that  of  England.  I 
could  wish,  indeed,  that  they  had  retained  the  moderate 
Episcopacy,  freed  from  all  unjust  domination  which  obtains 
among  us  ;  and  which,  if  I  have  any  skill  in  judging  upon  this 


172  APPENDIX. 

subject,  was  received  in  the  church  from  the  Apostolic  aore. 
Nor  do  I  despair  of  its  being  restored.  If  I  should  not  see  it 
myself,  posterity  will.  In  the  mean  time,  I  am  far  from  being 
so  uncharitable  as  to  believe  that  any  of  those  churches,  on 
account  of  this  defect — for  so  I  must  be  allowed  without  in- 
vidiousness  to  call  it — ought  to  be  cut  of  from  our  commu- 
nion :  nor  can  I  by  any  means  join  with  certain  mad  writers 
among  us  in  denying  the  validity  of  their  sacraments,  and  in 
calling  in  question  their  right  to  the  name  of  Christian  church- 
es."' Three  things  are  noticeable,  as  being  perfectly  evident 
from  this  quotation. 

1.  That  while  Archbishop  Whitgift  held  that  "  the  form 
of  government  used  in  the  Apostles'  time,  and  expressed  in 
the  Scripture,  neither  is  now,  nor  can,  nor  ought  to  be, 
observed,"  Archbishop  Wake  held,  that  "  moderate  episco- 
pacy," which,  he  judged,  was  received  in  the  church  from 
the  Apostolic  age,  should,  and  would  become  universal  in 
the  churches.  He  says  expressly,  "  If  I  should  not  see  it 
myself,  posterity  will." 

2.  They  both  agree  that  the  Episcopate  is  not  necessary 
to  the  existence  of  a  church,  or  the  validity  of  sacraments. 

3.  There  is  a  class  in  the  English  church,  whom  Arch- 
bishop Wake  calls  "  mad  writers"  who  deny  the  validity  of 
the  sacraments  of  other  denominations,  and  question  their 
right  to  the  name  of  Christian  churches.  If  this  dees  not 
prove  the  existence  of  three  classes  in  the  English  church, 
language  can  prove  nothing. 

To  show  the  existence  of  three  classes  in  the  American 
church,  we  quoted  Bishop  White,  of  Pennsylvania.  He 
says :  "  Now  if  even  those  who  hold  Episcopacy  to  be  of 
divine  right,  conceive  the  obligation  to  it  not  to  be  binding, 
when  that  idea  would  be  destructive  of  public  worship, 
much  more  must  they  think  so  who  indeed  venerate  and 
prefer  that  form  as  the  most  ancient  and  eligible,  but  with- 
out any  idea  of  divine  right  in  the  case.     This  the  author 


APPENDIX.  173 

believes  to  be  the  opinion  of  the  great  body  of  Episcopalians 
in  America,"  &c.  We  find  mentioned  in  this  extract  two 
classes  of  Episcopalians.  The  one,  and  they  by  far  the 
largest,  denying  the  divine  right  of  episcopacy,  the  other 
holding  to  its  divine  right,  but  admitting  that  under  certain 
circumstances  the  obligation  to  it  would  cease.  Now,  if  our 
author  will  allow,  and  with  his  own  book  before  him  he  can- 
not deny  it,  that  there  are  those  who  hold  that  episcopacy 
should  not  be  dispensed  with  under  any  circumstances  ;  that 
without  it  there  can  be  no  true  church,  no  valid  ordinances, 
no  authorized  ministry,  then  we  have  proved  conclusively 
the  existence  of  these  three  classes  in  the  American  Episco- 
pal church  ;  and  the  reader  may  perceive  the  entire  ground- 
lessness of  our  author's  denial  of  the  correctness  of  our 
statement  upon  this  subject. 

Our  author  is  not  satisfied  with  denying  the  existence  of 
tjiese  three  classes,  but  he  goes  farther  and  asserts,  "  There 
are  no  parties  in  the  Episcopal  church  on  this  subject,  or 
any  other.  The  church  is  one  from  Maine  to  Georgia ;  not 
a  bishop,  clergyman,  or  congregation  that  is  not  in  full, 
harmonious  union  with  the  whole."  Again  :  "  If  parties 
exist,  it  is  easy  to  say  where  and  how.  Assertions  and  names 
will  not  create  them  if  they  have  no  actual  being.  The 
reverend  gentleman  cannot  fasten  this  stigma  upon  us,"' 
And  does  not  our  author  know  that  his  church  is  divided 
into  high  and  low  church,  into  Puseyites  and  anti-Puseyites? 
Has  he  never  read  some  of  the  writings  of  his  "  bishops  and 
other  clergy  "  against  the  Oxford  heresies  ?  Does  he  not  know 
that  the  different  parties  in  the  Episcopal  church  are  mar- 
shalled, and  have  a  warm  contest  at  the  election  of  almost 
every  bishop,  and  that  these  divisions  frequently  manifest 
themselves  in  single  congregations  when  they  come  to  choose 
a  rector?  Is  he  ignorant  of  the  fact  that  the  election  of 
Bishop  Hobart  to  the  bishoprick  in  this  state  gave  ri^e  to 
heated  controversy?     Does  he  know  that,  when  Bishop  On- 

8 


174 


APPENDIX. 


derdonk  was  elected  assistant  bishop  to  Bishop  White  of 
Pennsylvania,  party  lines  were  drawn,  and  controversial 
pamphlets  and  letters  were  published  by  Episcopalians  upon 
the  subject?  Does  our  author  know  that  Bishop  Mcllvaine 
has  had  a  "  drawn  contest"  with  both  the  Bishop  Onder- 
donks  ? 

To  illustrate  the  wonderful  harmony  which  has  always 
existed  in  the  Episcopal  church,  we  will  here  introduce  a 
few  extracts  from  various  controversial  writings.  In  1827, 
the  Rev.  Benjamin  Allen,  Rector  of  St.  Paul's  Church, 
Philadelphia,  wrote  to  Bishop  Hobart  as  follows  :  "  In  the 
year  1807  you  were  desirous  of  preventing  the  settlement  of 
a  particular  clergyman  in  St.  Ann's  Church,  Brooklyn. 
That  clergyman  had  dared  to  differ  with  you.  In  the  year 
1811  the  Rev.  Mr.  Jones  published  a  pamphlet,  detailing  a 
series  of  oppositions  and  persecutions  experienced  at  your 
hands,  because,  as  he  states,  '  he  would  not  be  subservient 
to  your  wishes.'  The  Rev.  Dr.  Du  Cachet  was  so  opposed 
by  you,  when  seeking  holy  orders,  that  he  was  obliged  to 
obtain  those  orders  through  the  medium  of  another  bishop ; 
and  the  Rev.  Bishop  Griswold,  for  daring  to  ordain  him, 
was  subjected  to  your  serious  animadversions."  The  fact 
that  this  letter  was  occasioned  by  the  controversy  concern- 
ing the  election  of  Bishop  Onderdonk,  assistant  bishep  of 
Pennsylvania,  and  that  the  party  opposed  charged  Bishop 
Hobart  with  interfering  to  secure  the  election  of  Bishep 
Onderdonk,  will  sufficiently  explain  the  following  extracts. 
"  In  my  inmost  soul  I  do  honestly  believe  you  (Bishop  Ho- 
bart) to  be  the  worst  enemy  of  the  liturgy,  the  greatest 
opponent  to  the  spread  of  Episcopacy,  and  the  certain 
author  of  entire  ruin  to  our  church,  if  your  policy  pre- 
vail. In  every  portion  of  the  United  States  I  have  seen 
and  heard  discontent  and  dissatisfaction  concerning  you. 
You  are  entitled  *  the  Talleyrand,'  '  the  would-be  arch- 
bishop,'   and  every  other   name  which   can  indicate  the  ex- 


APPENDIX.  175 

istence  of  a  feeling  which  regards  you  as  ambitious,  inter- 
meddling, and  determined  to  obtain  power.  Hardly  a  dio- 
cese is  there,  which  does  not  expect  it  must  ask  your  per- 
mission, as  to  who  shall  be  bishop.  Scarce  a  religious  in- 
stitution but  beholds  you  with  dread.  Again  I  repeat,  you 
are  unarmed  with  the  civil  power.  Are  not  your  notions, 
however,  dangerous?  Because  our  ears  are  safe,  and  you 
cannot  touch  any  thing  more  than  our  characters,  are  we 
therefore  to  be  content  V*  Once  more :  "  Are  not  your 
sentiments  concerning  other  denominations,  giving  them 
over  to  the  nncovenanted  mercies  of  God,  altogether  con- 
trary to  those  of  Bishop  White,  declared  by  him  to  be  coun- 
ter to  the  formularies  of  the  church  of  England,  and  con- 
trary to  those  of  the  reformers  ?  Were  they  not  condemned 
by  the  House  of  Bishops  in  the  reign  of  Queen  Ann,  as 
'strange  conceits?'  Are  they  not  precisely  those,  as  to 
matters  of  church,  held  by  the  Jacobites  or  friends  of  the 
pretender,  and  again  by  the  tories?  Are  they  not  senti- 
ments opposed  to  the  whole  of  the  policy,  of  the  whole  of 
the  life,  of  the  presiding  bishop  ?  You  (Bishop  Hobart)  are 
opposed,  in  your  doctrines  and  views  of  polity,  to  the  views 
of  the  church  of  England,  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  church 
in  America,  of  the  senior  bishop  of  that  church,  of  the  re- 
formers, of  the  noble  army  of  martyrs,  of  the  primitive 
church,  of  the  glorious  company  of  Apostles,  of  the  word  of 
the  most  high  God ;  and  this  I  mean  to  prove  by  a  fair  re- 
ference to  your  writings  and  doings,  during  the  whole  of 
your  ecclesiastical  career."  In  a  pamphlet  published  in 
Philadelphia  in  1827,  upon  the  same  controversy,  entitled, 
"  Review  of  the  answer  to  the  remonstrance  sent  to  the 
bishop  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  church,"  we  find  the  fol- 
lowing :  "  Where  is  the  concord  in  sentiment  between  these 
gentlemen?  (Bishop  White  and  Dr.  Onderdonk.)  The 
former,  during  a  life  which  has  been  fruitful  in  incident, 
which  has  witnessed  every  form  of  popular  prejudice,  which 


176  APPENDIX. 

has  passed  through  scenes  of  civil  revolution,  has  not,  dur- 
ing the  whole  lapse  of  his  fourscore  years,  outraged  the 
feelings  of  other  denominations  to  so  great  an  extent,  as  the 
latter  has  done  by  a  solitary  act — an  act,  the  index  of  his 
career.  Let  any  one  read  the  expression  of  sentiments  by 
Bishop  White,  whether  in  the  pamphlets  of  '83,  or  the 
Chronicle  of  the  Episcopal  church,  published  in  1820,  and 
compare  them  with  the  ultra  opinions  of  the  doctor.  Be- 
hold the  former,  surrounded  in  his  study  by  the  representa- 
tives of  every  Christian  communion,  guiding  the  sacramental 
host  to  the  Godlike  work  of  dispensing  the  Bible  to  every 
cottage  in  the  land.  Then  read  what  the  latter  says 
about  such  a  union.  Is  the  former  to  descend  from  this 
moral  elevation  ?  Are  these  bonds  to  be  riven  by  views  not 
recognized  by  the  church  of  England,  the  Protestant  Epis- 
copal church  of  America,  or  the  inspired  Volume  1  Is  the 
bishop  to  say  to  those  with  whom  he  walked  in  brotherly 
agreement  fourscore  years — over  whose  general  institutions 
he  has  presided  in  harmony,  &>c, — '  I  have  learned  that  you 
have  no  part  in  the  gospel  covenant  V  While  just  on  the 
verge  of  the  Jordan  of  death,  is  he  to  shake  hands  and  part 
with  those  with  whom  he  has  reached  that  verge  in  concord  ? 
Is  he  to  tell  them  you  are  no  portion  of  the  flock  of  the 
Lord  ?  You  will  find  mercy,  doubtless ;  but  there  is  no 
covenanted  mercy  for  you  !  Will  Bishop  White  do  this  ? 
NevePv  ! "  From  these  extracts,  the  hearer  may  judge  to 
what  a  height  party  feeling  and  effort  ran  on  the  subject  of 
the  election  of  Bishop  Onderdonk,  as  assistant  bishop  of 
Pennsylvania;  and  yet  our  author  asserts,  "  There  are  no 
parties  in  the  Episcopal  church,  on  this  subject  or  any  other. 
The  church  is  one  from  Maine  to  Georgia;  not  a  bishop, 
clergyman,  or  congregation,  that  is  not  in  full,  harmonious 
union  with  the  whole." 

In  conclusion,  we  will  quote  a  few  extracts  from  a  letter 
of  Bishop  Mcllvaine  of  Ohio,  dated  Gambier,  March  6, 1841 : 


APPENDIX,  ITT 

and  directed  to  Dr.  Seabury,  the  editor  of  the  Churchman.  It 
was  published  in  the  Episcopal  Recorder,  and  introduced  by 
the  editor  of  that  paper,  with  the  following  remarks:  "  Our 
readers  may  be  grieved  with  ourselves,  to  see  and  know  the 
necessity  for  such  a  communication  as  the  following  from 
Bishop  Mcllvaine.  We  are  sorry  to  have  our  paper  occupied 
with  evidences  of  such  a  state  of  things  in  the  church,  as  are 
given  in  these  letters.  The  unholy  and  violent  course  which 
has  been  pursued  by  the  Churchman,  and  we  are  bound  to 
say  sanctioned,  because  unrestrained  and  uncontradicted  by 
Bishop  Onderdonk,  has  given  pain  and  distress  to  many 
minds  who  are  deeply  concerned  for  the  peace  and  welfare 
of  the  Episcopal  church.  We  do  not  feel  at  liberty  to  re- 
fuse Bishop  Mcllvaine  the  opportunity  of  self-defence  in  our 
columns,  as  he  has  been  so  unjustly  assailed.  But  we  feel 
called  upon  to  do  no  more,  in  connection  with  these  discus- 
sions, than  to  express  our  solemn  conviction  of  the  destruc- 
tive and  guilty  character  and  tendency  of  the  course  which 
has  called  for  such  a  defence.  The  church  will  see,  when 
ruptured  and  riven  by  the  violence  of  this  party,  her  peace 
destroyed,  her  truth  overshadowed,  her  integrity  broken, 
what  has  been  the  purpose  of  these  movements  on  their  part. 
To  us  it  will  be,  then,  as  it  is  now,  an  abiding  comfort  that 
we  labored  for  peace  and  truth  ;  and  the  responsibility  of 
the  result  may  rest  where  it  belongs,  on  an  ultra  party ; 
who,  by  a  bold  and  arbitrary  course  of  denunciation  of  the 
men  and  of  the  truth  of  God,  have  thrown  a  peaceful  body 
into  convulsions  and  schisms. " 

"  Bishop  Mcllvaine  to  the  Editor  of  the  Churchman. — I 
ask  no  other  answer  to  your  charge  of '  almost  heresy/  than 
that  those  who  read  what  you  have  written  will  also  read 
what  I  have  written.  But  why,  then,  am  I  so  pained  and 
mortified  ?  Is  it  because  such  treatment  and  such  opposi- 
tion from  you,  were  unexpected  1  Alas,  Dr.  Seabury,  I 
have  known  you  too  long  and  too  well,  not  to  know  just  how 


178  APPENDIX. 

such  truth — even  what,  in  my  view,  is  no  other  than  '  the 
glorious  gospel  of  the  blessed  God' — would  be  relished  by 
you.  I  knew  you  would  utterly  despise,  detest,  and  ridicule 
it,  just  as  you  have  done ;  and  I  have  no  idea  that  you  have 
expressed  all  you  feel  with  regard  to  it.  Your  hatred  of 
such  truth  is,  I  have  no  doubt,  even  much  greater  than  you 
have  expressed.  I  say  it  feelingly,  and  solemnly;  for  I  know 
the  awfulness  of  such  a  state  of  mind ;  and  if  I  supposed  you 
would  deny  it,  were  it  not  that  I  suppose  you  wish  to  be 
considered  as  in  that  state  of  mind,  I  would  not  thus  lay  it  to 
your  charge.  But,  as  long  as  I  thus  understand  the  views 
and  tastes  which  you  avow,  let  me  tell  you  seriously  (not  in 
the  spirit  of  severity)  that  until  there  shall  be  reason  to  sup- 
pose that  God  has  wrought  a  great,  and  what  I  should  call  a 
very  blessed,  change  in  your  views,  and  tastes,  and  sympa- 
thies, when  I  shall  publish  any  thing  distinctive  concerning 
the  great  matters  of  the  gospel,  especially,  as  to  what  a  poor 
sinner  must  do  to  be  saved,  I  shall  feel  much  more  confident 
that  '  I  speak  the  truth  as  it  is  in  Jesus,'  if  I  find  you  loath- 
ing it,  as  you  do  my  Charge,  than  if  I  find  you  praising  it. 
But  let  us  ask,  again,  why  does  your  treatment  so  pain  and 
mortify  me  ?  I  answer,  because  of  the  painful  consideration 
that  the  Churchman  is  so  widely  regarded  as  representing 
the  clergy  of  the  diocese  of  New  York,  and  especially  be- 
cause it  is  '  the  official  organ  of  the  Bishop  of  New  York, 
and  is  under  his  avowed  general  direction  and  supervision,' 
and  therefore  where  it  calls  my  charge  '  almost  heretical,' 
it  is  the  bishop  of  New  York  whom  the  bishop  of  Ohio  must 
consider  as  thus  speaking ;  and  where  it  ridicules  the  writ- 
ing of  the  bishop  of  Ohio  as  '  mere  romance,'  '  not  even 
founded  on  fact,'  and  as  the  work  of  a  writer  '  incompe- 
tent/ and  as  containing  '  a  perversion  of  historical  truth/ 
it  is  not  merely  Dr.  Seabury  who  is  responsible,  but  his  en- 
dorser and  patron,  and  director  and  superior,  his  protector 
in  these  things.     It  is  the  bishop  of  New  York,  who  is  just 


APPENDIX.  179 

so  much  the  more  responsible  for  these  expressions  and 
charges,  as  his  influence  in  giving  them  weight  was  greater, 
and  so  will  he  be  held  by  the  church,  as  well  as  by  myself. 
However  you  may  have  meant  it,  when  you  place  me  in  the 
company  of  Whitfield,  Wesley,  Newton,  Scott,  and  Simeon, 
I  by  no  means  decline  the  honor.  However  I  may  differ 
from  them  in  some  things,  I  love  and  honor  the  whole  group, 
and  especially  Newton,  Scott,  and  Simeon,  as  noble  soldiers 
of  Jesus  Christ;  and  God  forbid  that  I  should  not  feel  hon- 
ored by  such  ridicule  as  places  me  by  their  side.  Your 
charge  against  me  of  perverting  historical  truth,  and  of  hav- 
ing made  the  '  marvellous  assertion  '  that  Bishop  Bull  in- 
oculated so  many  of  the  best  divines  of  the  English  and 
American  churches,  down  to  Dehon  and  Hobart,  with  the 
views  of  Socinianism,  will  be  noticed  in  another  letter. 
Meanwhile,  I  am  yours  truly, 

"  C.  P.  McIlvaine." 

This  looks  very  much  like  there  being  "  no  parties  in 
the  Episcopal  Church  on  this  subject  or  any  other  " — like 
"  the  church  being  one  from  Maine  to  Georgia ;  not  a  Bishop, 
Clergyman,  or  Congregation,  that  is  not  in  full,  harmonious 
union  with  the  whole."  Besides  these  testimonies,  is  our 
author  uninformed  of  the  fact,  that  the  friends  of  Oxford, 
and  those  who  are  opposed  to  the  papal  dogmas  of  that 
school,  are  marshalling  their  forces  for  a  great  and  decisive 
battle,  both  in  the  old  world  and  the  new  ?*  Can  it  be  pos- 
sible that  our  author  is  entirely  ignorant  of  these  matters,  or 
does  he  suppose  that  he  has  to  deal  with  an  infant  or  an 
idiot,  and  may  make  bold  assertions  which  have  no  founda- 
tion in  fact,  without  having  them  exposed  and  corrected  ? 

*  The  reader  will  bear  in  mind  that  this  paper  was  prepared  be- 
fore the  ordination  of  Mr.  Arthur  Carey  by  Bishop  Onderdonk,  and 
of  course  before  the  occurrence  of  the  dissensions  growing  out  of 
that  event. 


180  APPENDIX. 

In  conclusion  we  would  ask,  Is  it  not  abundantly  evident 
that  the  ministerial  commission  cannot  contain  the  principle 
of  Unity  in  the  church  of  God,  when  the  very  denomination 
who  make  such  high  pretensions,  in  regard  to  this  commis- 
sion, are  so  far  from  being  a  united  body?  The  truth  is, 
those  graces  which  unite  the  church,  are  similarity  of  faith 
in  all  the  essentials  of  Christianity ,  and  love  to  God  and  the 
brethren.  Where  these  exist,  there  will  be,  there  must  be, 
union.  The  Lord  grant  that  these  graces  may  become  uni- 
versal, for  his  name's  sake ! 


Yd  29207 


B 1/ 

fid  6?  q,  1  o 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 


